In the Library with the Lead Pipe » Emily Fordhttp://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org
The murder victim? Your library assumptions. Suspects? It could have been any of us.Mon, 02 Mar 2015 21:14:03 +0000en-UShourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.1Häuserkämpfe: An Inside Look at Researching in DIY Archiveshttp://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2014/hauserkampfe-an-inside-look-at-researching-in-diy-archives/
http://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2014/hauserkampfe-an-inside-look-at-researching-in-diy-archives/#commentsWed, 29 Jan 2014 11:00:12 +0000/?p=5429

In Brief: This article is an interview with Jake Smith, a PhD student at the University of Chicago who spent over a year in Germany conducting his dissertation research in archives. Many of the archives he visited in support of his project, “Häuserkämpfe: Squatting, Urban Renewal, and the Crisis of Dwelling in West Germany, 1970-1995,” were small, do-it-yourself (DIY) collections curated and cared for by motivated individuals within squats. This interview delves into his experiences conducting research in this environment.

Introduction

In a recent conversation with a colleague she stated, “We are all amateur archivists in our own right.” Of course she is right. We all have something that we keep and cherish, whether they are memories or physical objects. But what happens when amateur archivists are just a bit more organized, when they are a bit more official, yet still unofficial? When they are do-it-yourself (DIY) archives?

Many DIY archival collections exist, whether they are kept by a family member, community historian, or an unofficial archivist as part of a grassroots organization. What is it like for researchers to use these unofficial, DIY archives? This question popped in to my head while catching up with a college friend in Chicago during ALA Annual 2013. My friend, Jake Smith, a classmate from Reed College in Portland, Oregon, had recently returned from living abroad in Germany to pursue research for his dissertation. As he explained more about his project and research, I became inspired to figure out how to share his experiences with Lead Pipe readers and our professional community.

Jake is currently working toward a PhD in History from the University of Chicago. His dissertation project, “Häuserkämpfe1: Squatting, Urban Renewal, and the Crisis of Dwelling in West Germany, 1970-1995,” took him to Germany for over a year to conduct research. Much of the research Jake conducted while living in Germany was archival, both in official archives and in more unofficial DIY archives. The following interview with Jake is an extension of our conversation that I hope will shed light not only on an archival researcher’s perspective, but will also bring to the fore the existence and importance of DIY archives.

Interview

Emily: I love the title of your dissertation project. It sounds very much like a project that would be suited to the Urban Studies discipline. Could you briefly describe your dissertation research?

Jake: In my dissertation, I trace the emergence and development of a peculiar form of pan-European spatial activism from its origin in Amsterdam, Frankfurt, and London, to its radicalization in the crucible of the 1980/81 European youth revolts, and finally to its partial diffusion in the spatially-circumscribed “scenes” of the late 1980s and 1990s. Focusing primarily on the squatting movement, I argue that these forms of spatial activism should be resituated within the context of a larger “crisis of dwelling” in postwar Europe, a crisis of the built environment and its effects on practices of sociability, community, and being-at-home.

E: You lived in Berlin for a year (or more) to conduct research for this project. Could you talk about how you approached research in a foreign country? What was your biggest unexpected challenge?

J: Although it should not have been unexpected, my biggest challenge was mastering the bureaucratic language necessary to navigate German institutions. Indeed, while my conversational German was perfectly adequate I was ill-equipped to deal with the institutional jargon that was necessary not only to gain access to sensitive archival material but also to procure a residence visa, sign a lease, and register with the police.

E: This reminds me of a Kafka-esque experience I had in Munich. My mother sent me my knee braces (a product of my surgeries) so that I could feel comfortable playing frisbee and not worry about re-injuring my knees. She marked the package “medical equipment” so of course that raised suspicion. I had to go pick up my package and open it in front of a customs officer. The package was held in an enormously and surprisingly empty building that reminded me of the Wayne Estate. I had to walk through a series of empty rooms to find where I needed to be. But I digress. You mention that part of the challenge was dealing with institutional jargon to access archival materials. Did you encounter any strange policies in the archives you visited?

J: Ha! I had a similar experience with customs in Berlin in which I was forced to open a box of Halloween candy in front of a small group of officials who, after much discussion, decided that the candy was of no value and that I would thus not be required to pay any extra fees. As to strange policies in the archives, this was certainly not the case in the DIY archives where anything reeking of official policy was deemed distasteful. In the official archives, by contrast, there were some hurdles such as the requirement that I fill out official request forms to view sensitive materials and then wait weeks for them to be approved. Ultimately, though, I was given access to the vast majority of the archival collections I wished to consult so my complaints should be taken with a grain of salt.

E: You mentioned that you visited squats with some DIY home archives and little libraries. How did you find these libraries? Did you have to go hunting for them or were they out in the open? What challenges did you encounter in trying to gather information from these one-of-a-kind collections?

J: The DIY archives, or Bewegungsarchive [(social) movement archive] as they are known in Germany, are open to the public however they can be difficult to find since they are not as well known as the more official archives. While developing my research topic, I came across the website for the archive at the Rote Flora in Hamburg and quickly found that there were similar archives in Berlin, Freiburg and other cities throughout Germany and Europe more broadly. Indeed, it turns out that there is a surprisingly extensive network of alternative archives throughout Europe. I think it would be highly productive for academic libraries and archives to forge closer connections with this vast network of DIY archives.

E: My colleague, Hugh Rundle, sent me an article to read entitled “The Librarian as Insider-Ethnographer,”2 which discusses the role that some individuals play in squat/DIY libraries. What do you think is the motivation for these individuals to act as a community’s archivist or librarian?

J: I thought about this issue while doing my research but was not able to come up with a definitive answer. I think, in part, their motivation comes from the fact that they were — and oftentimes still are — involved with progressive activism in Germany and believe that more effective forms of activism must necessarily emerge from a historically grounded understanding of the activist past. Thus, instead of constantly reinventing the wheel each time a new problem emerges, German activists can – theoretically at least – utilize these archives to look back on the legacies of 1980/81, 1968, and even the Communist resistance to the Nazi State. Another possible motivation may simply be the sheer joy of collecting personally resonant artifacts. Such archival collections – be they alternative or mainstream – facilitate, I would argue, feelings of historical embeddedness, feelings that one has a legible place in the broad sweep of historical time.

E: Interesting. Do you think either of these reasons mirrors your passion and drive for the topic as a historiographer? Do you feel a particular emotional connection to your research on the topic– aside, of course, from the normal feelings and obstacles of writing a dissertation?

J: I do feel an emotional connection with much of the material. On a very basic level, I sympathize both with the political positions and the cultural products of many of these activists. It is, after all, hard not to be enthralled with German punk music, wacky public art projects, and critiques of racist violence. I was also, however, moved by their emotionally resonant critique of social isolation in modern cities, their desire for interpersonal warmth, and their persistent attempts to forge connections with very diverse urban populations. Walking around Chicago, I’m oftentimes struck by the utter coldness of urban life, the uncanny feeling of being surrounded by strangers. I do realize, of course, that this is simply the nature of the urban experience, however, I can’t help but to wish for something more. The desire for social warmth within the West German Left – what some have referred to as a “Sehnsucht nach Nähe” [literally “yearning for closeness”] – is, in my opinion at least, really quite moving.

E: What do you think is the challenge for historians such as yourself when it comes to conducting research with materials that are “underground” or “DIY”? And how do you think those challenges spread to librarians and archivists? Did you sense any tension between the academy and less traditional systems? How did libraries and these DIY archivists react to your inquiries?

J: By and large the archivists at these alternative archives were extraordinarily welcoming. They made coffee, engaged in small talk, and seemed genuinely interested in my project. I found this conviviality to be rather astounding given the fact that I was an American PhD student with progressive views but without an activist pedigree. The warm welcome I received at these alternative archives was all the more surprising in light of my experiences at official archives, which, though not at all unpleasant, lacked a sense of interpersonal warmth. There are, of course, tensions between the academy and alternative archives, many of which revolve around funding. Indeed, many of the archivists expressed a quiet sense of frustration that they received little to no funding while mainstream libraries with far smaller collections received an abundance of official funding. These feelings were, however, never made explicit — the archivists were simply too friendly to engage in such overtly hostile attitudes.

E: Did you learn any more political or policy oriented insights as to why and how these archives have been underfunded?

J: It’s possible that there is still a fear that such material is incendiary in some sense, that it has the potential to incite the youth to revolt. It does, after all, often advocate for the overturning of capitalism and state power. It is also possible that official sources of funding simply distrust the organizational abilities of the DIY archives and worry that they would be ineffective in the preservation and acquisition of archival documents. I would argue that both of these fears are misplaced though I’m sure many would disagree with such an assessment.

E: How did you gain trust from collectors in order to conduct your research and see these unique collections? Do you continue to have relationships with these collectors and collections and if so, is there anything in your background or identity that you think enables collectors to trust you?

J: A good question to which I, unfortunately, must answer: I have no idea. I simply laid it on the table, told them what I was working on, and then tried to be as courteous as possible. I’m not sure they ever fully trusted me but they certainly got used to me and gave me access to their materials. Part of this goes back, I believe, to the tendency of radical leftists in Germany to focus on interpersonal connections and more “authentic” forms of community. Part of it also probably stems from the simple fact that spending time with people tends to result in collegiality — though I may be a bit too optimistic on this front. In any case, I don’t think they had any real reason to trust me with their collections but they did so nonetheless.

E: How do you think your experience may have been different if you were a part of the “authentic” community?

J: I don’t think they would have treated many any differently, though I do believe that I would have been looking for different types of material.

E: Did anything about the academic libraries you visited in Germany surprise you?

J: I was most surprised by the fact that, in official German libraries, it was next to impossible to browse the stacks. When you enter an institution like the Staatsbibliothek [national library] in Berlin you first have to leave all of your personal belongings in a locker outside of the main reading rooms. Once in the reading rooms you then have the option of perusing a limited number of reference books or placing an order for the books you wish to look at, some of which can then be taken off site. Too often, we take for granted the extraordinary freedoms offered by something as basic as open stacks.

E: So how did you know what books you wanted to request? Do you feel like using the library catalog was a good enough way for you to do that?

J: I think that by the end of my stay I was becoming somewhat more adept at finding the books I needed but most of the time I found myself groping in the dark. They have search engines but as anyone who has ever used such tools well knows, they are not a substitute for good old-fashioned browsing.

E: Did you have to modify your research approach based on availability of resources or the kind of library you were visiting?

J: To a certain extent, yes. Initially, I intended to use official documents such as police records and government reports but quickly found that these are highly restricted. In some cases, I was able to gain access to these documents by applying for special privileges and assuring the archivists that I would not be publishing any names or other personal data. Reflecting back, I should have expected this given that many of the documents detail illegal activities and could be used for all of the wrong reasons.

E: Would you mind giving an example of the kinds of activities you were able to uncover and what those protected documents told you?

J: Primarily these were police documents describing criminal activities during riots such as breaking storefront windows, throwing rocks at police, and generally causing havoc. There were also official documents created during police stake-outs of the squats which detailed the activities surrounding the houses. The activities described in these documents are not really surprising, however the fact that they include names make them highly sensitive.

E: If you had to pick one pamphlet that was your favorite, which would it be and why?

J: It would probably not be a pamphlet at all but one of the many documentary films produced by and about the movement. One of my favorites is Paßt bloß auf, which documents the squatting movement in Freiburg in the early 1980s. The film is exceptional not only for its documentary footage of demonstrations and life inside of the squats but for its artistic innovation as well.

E: What is your favorite story from visiting the squats?

J: I can’t say that I actually have a favorite story or experience. Not because I didn’t enjoy my time visiting the alternative archives in Germany but because there were many small moments in which I felt infinitely lucky to be in such archives. For example, when the heat went out at the Rote Flora archive in Hamburg and everyone went about their work in hats, gloves, and coats. Or sitting and drinking a cup of coffee with the archivist in Freiburg. Or the wonderful sound of the teakettle at the Papier Tiger archive in Berlin. Fantastic experiences, fantastic places, fantastic people…

E: Thank you for sharing your experiences, Jake.

Conclusion

After my discussion with Jake I was struck with how little I know of DIY archives that may exist in the United States. Certainly I know of Docs Populi, Lincoln Cushing’s project that brings “documents to the people,” but I am woefully uninformed of much else. As library workers we engage with our communities, and discovering and supporting DIY archival projects seems a natural fit. Do you know of any DIY archives? How do engage with them?

Many thanks to Jessie Lymn, not only for her inspiring article but also for helping review these interview questions and review the final interview. Additional thanks to Lead Pipe colleagues Brett, Hugh, Erin, and Ellie for providing additional feedback.

In Brief: This article offers a reflection on my pursuit to become a writer-librarian. In addition to participating in a professional writing program at my institution, in November of 2012 I participated in Academic Writing Month and Digital Writing Month. Through these immersive experiences I worked to figure out who is my writerly librarian self and discovered some tools and techniques to help me along the way. This article begins with an explanation of Academic Writing Month and Digital Writing Month, discusses writing in Library and Information Science, and then offers more reflection on my discoveries as I tried to become a writer-librarian. Among my discoveries, the most helpful were getting to know my writing barriers and making writing social. Finally, this article offers advice to others who may wish to incorporate writing into their professional lives.

Thanks to Flickr user Urbanworkbench for use of this image.

Introduction

I always tell people that if I hadn’t become a librarian I would have become a chef, but this is a lie. The truth is that I always wanted to be a writer. To be a manipulator of words and to caress them into meaning—this was the thing I wanted, and yet it is the thing that has taken me thirty-three years to publicly admit.

When I had the opportunity to write in my professional life and work with In the Library with the Lead Pipe, there was no decision to be made. Over the past four years I have become immersed in the world of professional writing and editing as a Lead Pipe Co-Founder and Editorial Board member. Writing, as I had always perceived and experienced it, was a lonely task. As a child and teenager I journaled alone. I wrote poems alone. Writing papers throughout the course of my career in higher education as a student and professional had also always been a mostly lonesome task.

Being in a new tenure-track position I wanted to further engage in and improve my writing; so when I had the opportunity to join a writing program at my institution in in fall of 2012, I joined. In my flurry of writing excitement and in the hopes of further developing my writerly self, I also signed up for some new-to-me writing experiments: Academic Writing Month (Acwrimo) and Digital Writing Month (Digiwrimo). Acwrimo and Digiwrimo, both occurring simultaneously during the month of November, were writing challenges organized over social media that encourage participants to write 50,000 words. At the same time they were communities of practice.

Acwrimo was started in 2011 by Charlotte Frost, founder of PhD2Published, a blog and online community that serves as a resource for “Academic Publishing Advice for First Timers.” For Frost, Acwrimo was a way to kick into gear an academic writing project. Using social media, participants announced their progress, supported other community members, gave advice, and generally participated in a virtual academic writing community. While the goal first posted by Charlotte was to write 50,000 words, it could really be whatever goal you wanted to set for yourself. Similarly, Digiwrimo challenged participants to write 50,000 digital words between November 1st and 30th, but it also challenged participants to think about what it is to write digitally. More structured than Acwrimo, Digiwrimo offered weekly tweet chats and presented participants with opportunities to write creatively and collaboratively on projects. The month also featured a Night of Writing Digitally, wherein its organizers hosted participants at Marylhurst University for a night of writing individually, collaboratively, and yes, digitally.

The goals I set for myself were pretty lofty. I set separate goals for both Acwrimo and Digiwrimo, but intentionally overlapped some of them. For Acwrimo I would write an hour a day or seven hours a week, blog the process to the end goal of having a future Lead Pipe article about the experience, and complete a draft of an article I had been working on for eight months. For Digiwrimo I would post once a day at my personal blog, tweet once a day, have drafts of two Lead Pipe articles complete, and have drafted an essay for a non-library publication. Suffice it to say, I did not completely meet any of these goals. Instead, the month became more about the writing process itself. I began to question. What IS it to write? What is it to write digitally? What is it to write librarianly or to be a writerly librarian? As I completed pomodoros and blogged and tweeted, I wanted to know what it is to be a writer and a thinker in the field of LIS.

The rest of this article is my attempt to answer these questions. First I’ll investigate writing in LIS and reflect on my experiences with writing in the field. Then I will reflect on the writing activities I pursued in November. Sharing my insights I will attempt to define what it is to be a writerly librarian and how to become one.

Writing in Library and Information Science

There is no paucity of literature discussing librarians and writing. Blogs, columns, books, and general writing advice is easy to find. In fact, several librarian writers discuss what they see as the natural relationship between librarian-ing and writing. Carol Smallwood discusses her 2010 book, Writing and Publishing: The Librarian’s Handbook, in American Libraries magazine. “Librarians tend to be creative people, and what other profession than librarianship could be more encouraging for writers? We are surrounded by books, technology, and people, providing the opportunity not only to write for the profession but also to produce poetry, novels, short stories, and creative nonfiction for children and adults” (Smallwood, 2009). Indeed, there are numerous examples of librarians who author short stories, mystery and romance novels, poetry and more poetry, and even those who have authored biographies for an audience of juveniles.

Creative pursuits aside, there is also a vast realm of professional literature in librarianship. Writing in professional literature is dominated by library school faculty and academic librarians (Penta & McKenzie, 2013). Even for these professionals writing can be a struggle. Almost all of the existing articles and columns discussing writing librarians address the challenges of hectic and busy work lives. Moreover, much of the writing activity in librarianship occurs outside of the normal working hours; it is treated as extracurricular.

“Writing is generally done outside the “normal” working day; frequently, they do not work in a culture where the dissemination of practice and research output is the norm; librarians may have a clear sense of identity of themselves as practitioners supporting the publishing efforts of their academic colleagues, rather than as active participants in generating scholarly output.” (p. 8, Fallon, 2012)

In their 2010 article, “Beliefs, Attitudes, and Perceptions about Research and Practice in a Professional Field,” Jane Klobas and Laurel Clyde present lack of time as one of the most common barriers to writing for library practitioners. It is probably for this reason that many practicing librarians choose not to make writing a priority in their careers, especially if writing is not required in their jobs.

However, writing does more for librarianship than take up spare time. In her 2008 editorial published in College &Undergraduate Libraries, Inga Barnello acknowledges a universal lack of writing time in librarianship, but argues that by sharing and disseminating our work, we librarians work to support one another: “We are all swamped. Those who are writing do not have some bank of free time from which to withdraw extra hours in the day for writing. Secondly, we have similar issues that we are grappling with. Our projects revolve around common predicaments. We all benefit from the best practices of others” (p. 73). For Barnello writing and disseminating our work means that others don’t have to reinvent the wheel.

Like Barnello I see writing as an essential part of communicating with my colleagues. I also fall into the extracurricular “weekend writer” camp—these Lead Pipe articles don’t write themselves!—my writing activities extend far beyond my working hours. For someone like me, not writing is not an option; I am intellectually curious and attempt to engage in a reflective praxis of librarianship. Writing manifests as an excellent tool to engage in my praxis.

I’m No Expert

I may be a co-founder and editorial board member for Lead Pipe, but I am by no means an expert writer. I served a stint as a co-editor of RUSA Update, but most of my scholarship and professional writing experiences to date have been connected to this journal. This is not to say that Lead Pipe hasn’t been an incredible and educational experience. In fact, current and former Lead Pipe Editorial Board members are some of the best (and harshest!) editors I’ve ever had, and each author for Lead Pipe writes with her own panache. I think about our writing in LIS, and I think about what we do and what we are required to do, and how we must be increasingly proficient with different writing modalities to be successful and good at our jobs.

No one is born a writer. Sure, individuals may show a certain aptitude for language and the written word, but no one automatically knows how to do it. Like anything else it takes practice, time and dedication. Still, how are we librarians trained to write? Do librarians learn to write in library school? I didn’t. I started the process in 1st grade when my teacher insisted that we all keep journals. Continuing throughout my K-12 education there were a handful of teachers who instilled in me good writing practices and skills. Ms. Moulden in the 1st grade—I still have my journals—Mrs. Baldwin in the 4th grade, Mrs. Walkiewicz throughout high school, Dr. Pancho Savery in college—who taught me proper use of “that” and “which”—and Dr. Katja Garloff, my senior thesis adviser. By the time I reached graduate school I had a solid writing foundation. Luckily, I found a good editor in Phil Eskew, an adjunct professor who taught my first-ever library school class: Issues in Public Library Management. He asked that we write several two-page papers. Two pages! As one who studied German literature in college I was accustomed to the twenty-page academic paper. Two pages! Obviously writing as a librarian would be incredibly different than my senior thesis, and it would pose unique challenges. I had to learn to write clearly and succinctly.

As librarians we are asked to write daily. Whether it’s email with students and faculty answering questions and explaining policies and procedures, or whether it’s short announcements about programs and services, we arguably communicate more today via the written word than ever before. Moreover, our professional associations and recent practice in librarianship has moved toward the trend for us to “articulate our value.” (ACRL’s Value of Academic Libraries initiative, the NN/LM Middle Atlantic Region Study, and I Love Libraries’ Library Value Calculator are a few good examples.) There is no better way to articulate value than to communicate it through words. The excessive amounts of data we gather is not enough. It is the compelling stories behind the data that we need to communicate—and with good writing this articulation becomes easier.

Writing is Social

A month prior to starting Acwrimo and Digiwrimo I began participating in a year-long writing program at my institution called Jumpstart Academic Writing. The program, facilitated by Dannelle D. Stevens, PhD, put participants into writing groups that were asked to meet weekly. The writing groups were intended to bring a social aspect to writing. Group members announced to one another their weekly writing goals. In this group participants were individuals one could ask for help, or they could simply act as peer mentors who held one another accountable for their goals. Each month the program hosted a larger group meeting facilitated by Dr. Stevens. In these meetings she led us in writing activities that encouraged us to become more familiar with our writing selves and the practice of academic writing and publishing.

During November a typical writing day for me began while I drank my coffee and ate my breakfast. I caught up on #acwrimo and #digiwrimo tweets, blog posts and other social media items that had accumulated overnight and early in the morning from the East coasters, European and Australian participants. After getting to work I would boot up my machine, make some tea, close my office door and sit down to complete one writing pomodoro.1 I wrote “offline”—no Facebook, email, Twitter or any other potential distraction. After my 30 minutes ended I would go about my work day, periodically checking in on the #acwrimo and #digiwrimo Twitter streams. If it was a Thursday, I would meet with my writing group at noon, where we would eat lunch and check in on each others’ progress. When 5:30 rolled around I would stop whatever I was doing, log out of email, and shut my office door. Again opening one of my writing projects I would complete one more pomodoro before leaving work.

After some downtime and dinner I returned to writing immersion. If there was a Digiwrimo challenge, I would attempt to participate. Evenings were also my designated time to reflect on writing successes and challenges (in blog form), and the time during which I attempted to craft words into sentences and paragraphs on my personal blog. Before the night ended I would be sure to log the day’s productivity on the public Academic Writing Accountability Google Doc.

As a result of November and my participation in the Jumpstart Writing Program [pdf] I realized that, in contrast to my previous reclusive writing behavior, my writing was becoming and should be social. I was better able to keep up with my seven hour a week goal when I tracked my progress on a public spreadsheet; I was better able to keep my writing time focused when I publicly declared goals to peers in my writing group; and I was able to get help and support for writing when I asked my community for it and when I saw others in my community struggling with similar writing obstacles.

The main differences between the virtual writing months and the Jumpstart Writing Program were a matter of intensity. In the Jumpstart program participants focused on small, achievable goals—with the end goal that participants would build a sustainable writing practice to continue throughout their professional lives. In wild contrast, Acwrimo and Digiwrimo focused on grand plans and some rather insane goals, projects and schemes. As the folks over at ProfHacker stated, the first rule of Acwrimo is to “set yourself some crazy goals.” Similarly, Digiwrimo encouraged participants to count every word written in emails, tweets, and Facebook updates and comments. The Digiwrimo About page declared: “Digital Writing Month is a (somewhat) insane month-long writing challenge, a wild ride through the world of digital writing, wherein those daring enough to participate wield keyboard and cursor to create 50,000 words of digital writing in the thirty short days of November” (Digital Writing Month, 2012). In fact, Digiwrimo began November 1st with a challenge for participants to collaboratively write a novel in a day.

I decided to participate in Acwrimo and Digiwrimo to immerse myself in writing and to think differently about writing. The in-person program in which I was participating was great, but I felt like I needed an intense writing boot camp to complete some projects. Plus, the prospect of thinking about writing in new ways, as promised by Digiwrimo, appealed to me. During this month I was going to be the lone wolf; the writer who holed herself up in her office pretending she wasn’t in the building during the first and last half hours of the day. When I would get home from work I would continue writing. Yes, my goals were insane—of course I did not fully meet any of them—but I did not let that discourage me. What I did not expect to uncover during November was how social I was becoming in this writing process that had previously seemed a lonesome endeavor.

Digiwrimo, in particular, was structured to be collaborative and social. Its organizers invited writers to create crowdsourced poems, novels, and other creative written works. During the Night of Writing Digitally, an in person and virtual event, we wrote a poem, and the month ended with a beautiful Twitter Essay. (You can still read it, thanks to this Storify by fellow Digiwrimo participant, Kevin Hodgson. In fact, you can get a glimpse into Digiwrimo at the Digiwrimo Scoop.it page.)

Using social media I was able to check in with my writing colleagues across the globe, offer encouragement to those who were struggling, and seek similar encouragement when I needed it. My contributions to the Academic Writing Accountability Google Doc, too, were evidence of my social writing behavior. But it wasn’t just my behavior. These writing communities were inherently social. They were communities of practice with all of the necessary parts.2 I learned, engaged, and identified as an Acwrimo-er and a Digiwrimo-er, and I still do.

Reflecting on Writing

But it wasn’t just these programs that allowed me to discover my writerly self, on my own I began to read about writing. One of the books I had heard recommended by Dr. Stevens and fellow junior faculty members was Paul Silvia’s How to Write a Lot. Certainly aimed at academics who need to try to incorporate writing into their daily routines, Silvia’s book is startlingly easy to read, insightful, and humorous.

Of course it is a misconception that academic writing must be dry, nap-inducing, third-person reports of research written for journals whose editors will suck the life out of your work. And no one better communicates this than Paul Silvia. His short monograph allows readers to enter into his world—one of a prolific academic writer. He is a psychologist who constructs beautiful, engaging and witty sentences. On my Acwrimo blog, Seven Hours a Week, I wrote:

“Now halfway through this book, I’ve noticed that several chapter begins with unexpected similes, or at least witty and surprising statements. For instance, chapter two begins with, “Writing is grim business, much like repairing a sewer or running a mortuary.” Chapter four: “Complaining is an academic’s birthright.” Chapter six: “Psychology journals are like the mean jocks and aloof rich girls in every 1980s high school movie–they reject all but the beautiful and persistent.” Silvia’s discussions of grammar and punctuation utilize subtle and elegant examples, embedded almost secretly within the text; it is almost as if he is amusing himself. I congratulated myself on noticing this brilliant execution, and also found myself wondering if he intended to offer us that reward of self-gratification.”

Silvia inspired me to make the time to write. I had to face it, I was not going to be struck by a moment of passion in which I had to drop everything I was doing and write an article about librarianship. Instead of allowing a looming deadline to inspire me, I took Silvia’s advice and put aside the first and last half hour of my working day to write.

One of the activities I completed in the Jumpstart Writing Program was based on a book by Robert Boice, Professors as Writers. He created an instrument to allow academic writers to better know themselves—the blocking questionnaire. Questions Boice asks are those related to our inner thoughts and about writing and our writing habits. He breaks blocking down into seven components: work apprehension, procrastination, writing apprehension, dysphoria, impatience, perfectionism, and rules. From there he organizes these seven categories into three different measures: checklist for overt signs of blocking, checklist of cognition/emotion in blocking, and survey of social skills in writing. A writer can score herself in each of these measures, and then compute her mean blocking score and her mean component scores to see where are her blocks and what are her traits. Based on the questionnaire I discovered that I am an impatient perfectionist – a writer full of contradiction. Although these traits aren’t secret to me, the questionnaire allowed me recognized them in their brutal and ugly honesty.

Impatience is pretty straightforward and so is perfectionism. However, when reading the description of perfectionism I was taken aback.

A few writers, in my experience, refuse to abandon their maladaptive styles of perfectionism, supposing that doing so is tantamount to abandoning civilized standards of excellence. In this regard, perfectionism resembles shyness in that its possessors tend to be nice people who are closet elitists. (p. 153)

My inner dialog huffily reacted, “I am NOT an elitist!” A few moments later it resigned. “Crap. I’ve been outed.” Since I began my career I edited others’ works, received feedback on my writing, and wrote collaboratively. Yet how is it that I was now a closet elitist? Reflection and self-discovery were not foreign to me and I embraced any exercise that allowed me to acknowledge and better understand myself and my writing practice. Simply by discovering my writing blocks, I took a step towards ameliorating them.

It Wasn’t All Reflection

Even though I didn’t fully meet my goals, my Acwrimo and Digiwrimo 2012 were incredibly productive. During the month I completed, with my co-author Carol Bean, “Open Ethos Publishing at Code4Lib Journal and In the Library with the Lead Pipe.” I had a draft of a research article completed, which I was then able to whip into shape and submit by mid-January. Moreover, a co-author and I received revision requests for a book chapter during this month, which we were able to quickly turn around and resubmit to the editor.

What I noticed about my technique, opening and ending my work day with a half hour pomodoro3 of writing time, is that it was a great way to get some of the nitty-gritty writing work out of the way. A half hour allowed me to freely write, and it allowed me to poke at revisions and edits. But I also sometimes felt that these half hours were lacking. At the end of some of these half hours I felt like I had just gotten started, and so I would extend my time by five or ten minutes, or even for another half hour. However, I frequently did not have the leeway in my schedule to do so, nor did I feel that I could ignore all of the other things that were piling up while I was spending time writing.

Despite my ability to set aside work-day time for writing, a lot of my Acwrimo and Digiwrimo writing activity occurred “off the clock.” It was on weekends when my co-author and I could connect via Google+ hangouts, and when I had longer than half-hour chunks of quiet time to edit and revise my work. At the end of it all, I feel most proud of the Lead Pipe articles that were partially drafted during Acwrimo and Digiwrimo. For the most part, this is because I like the content and subjects of what I write for Lead Pipe. I also feel more free and confident when writing for Lead Pipe than for other venues. Here I have a voice and here I have an established writing community of practice.

All in all, November 2012 was a productive writing month for me. In addition to the self-reflection and self-discovery I began to produce a body of work that has culminated in works that have already been published or will be published in the future.

Find Your Writerly Self and Become a Writer-Librarian

In the past my writing had always been a solitary activity. But as a result of my participation in Acwrimo, Digiwrimo, and in the Jumpstart group, I have come to better know my writerly librarian self. I am an impatient perfectionist. I am prone to holing up in my home office on Saturday mornings or spending $3.50 on a decaf rice milk latte and three hours producing sentences and paragraphs that hopefully mean something. But I also need to be part of a social writing community; my best writerly self emerges when I am part of a community of practice. Keeping writing social allows me to set and attain goals and allows me to get necessary feedback earlier in the writing process. Discovering these things was tough, but even though acknowledging my personal challenges was intimidating, the rewards have made it worth the effort.

For you readers who would like to discover your writerly librarian selves, there are a few things I’ve gleaned from my immersive experience that I encourage you to do. First, get to know your librarian self. What do you value? What is your philosophy? What do you have to share? What do you want to share? Then get to know your writerly self. What are your writing challenges and what are your writing behaviors? Consider checking out Boice’s book and take the blocking questionnaire. After you’ve identified your blocks, think about how you can work with them. What can you do to overcome the impatient perfectionist in you? Knowing what are your challenges will enable you to better operate with them. For me, I am now trying to work well in advance of deadlines to tame the impatience (I can deal with a deadline), but also to allow myself enough time to polish my work before it gets published.

After you’ve engaged in some writerly self-discovery, try to think about how you want to prioritize writing as part of your life. Will it be on weekends? Will it be every morning? In essence, what will you sacrifice in order to write? As you begin to incorporate writing into your professional life, be sure that you allocate the time to do so. Be aware that when you allocate time to write, you will be taking time away from other tasks. Think about whether there is something on your plate that you don’t need to do, or you can do less frequently, or if it is something that can be delegated to someone else.

When you’ve come to know yourself and when you’ve set aside the necessary time, next try to set some writing goals. Set short-term goals—these can be weekly or daily—and set some long-term goals. Your goals should be a mix of easily achievable and those that would be more challenging. And whatever goals you do set, go easy on yourself. It’s not whether you achieve them, it’s the ride you take to try and get there.

Finally, make writing social. Find an existing writing community of practice like Acwrimo and participate. You can even start tracking your progress on the publicly shared Academic Writing Accountability spreadsheet. Alternatively, you can form your own writing group. Whatever you do, find or create a community—be it virtual or face-to-face—that challenges and supports you to become not only your writerly self, but a writer-librarian.

Many thanks to Chris Hollister and Emily Drabinski for their thoughtful comments and feedback. Additional thanks to Lead Pipe Editorial Board members Erin Dorney and Ellie Collier for their comments and edits.

During this time I was working on both a literature review article that will be forthcoming this summer provided the publisher and I get the author agreement worked out, and the article Carol Bean and I published in December: “Open Ethos Publishing at Code4Lib Journal and In the Library with the Lead Pipe.”

“The community of practice is, then, the group of practitioners with whom learners must engage and in whose activities they must be able to participate in order to learn. Learning is, ultimately, the process of becoming (and becoming recognized as) a member of such a community. As such, learning involves much more than acquiring the explicit knowledge associated with a particular practice. It also requires developing the tacit understanding, inherent judgment, and shared identity that come with participation.” (Duguid, 2003, p. 234)

The Pomodoro Technique is a method of time management wherein one concentrates on a task, typically for twenty-five minutes, and then takes a five minute break. After four pomodoros, as these twenty-five minute chunks of time are popularly called, one takes a longer break.

In Brief: In this editorial, In the Library with the Lead Pipe Editorial Board members Erin Dorney, Emily Ford, Kim Leeder, and Micah Vandegrift discuss their upcoming panel presentation that will take place at the ACRL 2013 National Conference in Indianapolis. The panel, with the same title as this editorial, will address what we believe constitutes do-it-yourself (DIY) library culture, its presence in academia, and its implications for the future of librarianship. We conclude by asking readers to contribute your voices and ideas to the discussion by blogging, tweeting, YouTubing, and attending the event in person. Be sure to tag your remarks with #diylib and, if tweeting, mention @libraryleadpipe.

By John Manyjohns on Flickr

Introduction

Librarianship has seen a groundswell of innovative do-it-yourself (DIY) activity in recent years. Projects have popped up here and there; creative, independent efforts with the goal of solving problems, increasing effectiveness, and making positive change in the field. Take, for instance, Library Juice Press, the Library as Incubator Project, the Blended Librarian webcast, and ALA’s Library Lab. We see our own blog-turned-journal, In The Library With The Lead Pipe, as a DIY effort. DIY projects are shiny and exciting (and time-consuming), but to what end? For academic librarians this DIY culture is closely tied with professional development and scholarship, but what does it say about the future of the academic library profession?

This is a question we propose to answer in a panel session at the ACRL National Conference this month. The panel, with the same title as this editorial, will address what we believe constitutes DIY library culture, its presence in academia, and its implications for the future of librarianship. However, we wanted to “flip” the presentation, take it out of the box, and shake it around a little, so we’re sharing our content in advance of the conference in this editorial. What this means is that instead of spending our hour in Indianapolis presenting content, we can focus on conversation and interaction to explore the issue together and showcase a variety of voices and perspectives (now that sounds pretty DIY-y, doesn’t it?). Please read on, contribute your thoughts (using the tag #diylib) and, for those who will be attending ACRL National, join us to continue the conversation in person on Thursday, April 11th at 3-4 p.m. in the JW Marriott Grand Ballroom 9-10.

Kim

DIY activities are always creative by nature, but DIY culture in libraries is less about creativity and more about basic survival. A traditional library is a dead library. We know this: if libraries don’t change they will fade away, eclipsed by the free, the instant, and the easy. The mantra of twenty-first century librarianship is and must be: change, change, and more change. DIY is what we call the change that we invent rather than waiting for others to invent it.

I embrace this attitude. I finished my MLIS in 2006 and joined the field, like many of my contemporaries, with the full awareness that my brand new career might only only have another ten or twenty years of gas in the tank. I was perfectly comfortable with this uncertainty. I was optimistic, and continue to be optimistic, that I was joining a field that was actively evolving, and in whose evolution I would be lucky enough to participate and, perhaps, even influence. But I was also willing to accept the possibility that I might be making another career change in the future when librarianship disappeared or became something totally different, even unrecognizable.

As academic librarians, we have a wide array of daily tasks to accomplish. We answer questions, we collect, we teach, we budget. Beyond those daily tasks are the bigger concerns, the bigger questions: what does it mean? What are our big-picture goals? Where are we headed as a field? And when we dip our toes into those questions, we find that there are no easy answers. We also find that no one else is going to answer those questions for us, so we begin to imagine, and plan, and create, and build. We begin to recreate ourselves and to make meaning that will sustain us, and our field, long into the future.

We are DIY because we can’t be anything else, because anything else would be raising the white flag of librarianship letting the future sweep us away. We must reinvent ourselves and our libraries or we will become anachronisms, defeated by time. We will not give up. We have too much to offer.

Erin

The thing I love about the DIY movement in libraries is that you have the freedom to pick things that are important to you. You don’t have to fit the mold of what a librarian or a library “should” look like. You can reinvent yourself, the services your offer, the resources you provide to the community, and more based on your continual growth as a person and as a professional. You can be responsive to the needs of your community by moving towards the outskirts and taking action. Yes, it might mean you work on your DIY project on nights and weekends. Yes, it might mean volunteering and doing work with no monetary reward. Yes, it might mean that some of your colleagues snub their noses at your “most recent trend.” But to me, those seem to continually wind up being the projects that make me feel most passionate about being a librarian, and quite honestly have kept me engaged in this field. Ever since I graduated from library school in 2008, people have worried about the future of libraries and if we’ll be around in 20 years and if so what libraries will look like. To some, that might be scary. But I didn’t become a librarian for stability. I became a librarian because of its potential–the opportunity to be part of redefining the status quo. DIY is about reinventing yourself and reinventing librarianship in the process.

Emily

In a way, we academics have been doing the DIY thing ever since the academy was the academy. With intellectual curiosity we pose questions, design experiments, conduct research, and reflect and report on our findings. In essence, the academy has born the ultimate DIY culture. However, over hundreds of years what was at first DIY has become institutionalized, regularized, and politicized.

For those of us in tenure-related positions, our work is evaluated by our peers via promotion and tenure processes. So how is our current DIY work valued? How is it assessed and evaluated? What tensions lie between the “traditional” form of DIY and its contemporary manifestations? Will contemporary DIY simply morph into a new traditional form?

It remains unclear whether DIY library culture has indeed become mainstream or whether it will remain on the periphery. In the academy, where tradition seems to rule the proverbial roost, how can contemporary DIYers positively change their libraries and communities and successfully play the institutional and political games inherent in higher education?

Micah

When DIY is the topic, I tend to lean toward a historical view, placing everything I know about self-madeness behind the culture/mindset/ideology of DIY born out of the post-punk subculture of the early 80s. What kids like Ian Mackaye and Henry Rollins did was DIY, sure, but not the same thing we are talking about here. Their “Doing It Themselves” was born purely out of necessity; no one was going to put out their records… ever. DIY, as it became enmeshed in our cultural consciousness, began as an imperative not a luxury; a must, not a choice. In the subcultural movement that followed, “DIY” evolved to be a code of conduct, an ethic or a principle. An important one, truly, but losing some of the grit and gall of which it was spawned.

I think I have to take an oppositional view than I had originally presented to my colleagues – I think what we do is not DIY. It is a new culture of professional development, yes, one driven by what we want, and how we work, rather than what professional associations or historical guidelines tell us. But, I do not see subversion of bureaucracy. I do not see radical shifts in the work we do, especially in academic librarianship. If I take a hardline, DIY-historicist point-of-view, there is little that might qualify as DIY in librarianship. Don’t get me wrong, we are overwhelmed with self-motivation, passion, creative projects, community building and scrappy, get-it-done attitude. But what is it that we MUST do? That we do BECAUSE no one else will do it? What do we do ourselves that compels others to participate based on the “damn the man” principle?

Ingenuity and innovation in our work is essential. But, to truly adopt a do-it-yourself culture in academic librarianship I think we should stop talking about the ebook problem and build our own platform-agnostic e-reader. We should stop writing for publishers that are unwilling to adapt to our intellectual property demands. We should invest in developing publishing partnerships within our Universities and Colleges. We should teach our students to be the best god damned googlers on the planet. We should hack every software and challenge every vendor to provide an open API so we can build what we really need, not what they sell us. Or we should walk away. Currency in the future DIY Culture of Academic Librarianship will be exactly what it was in the DC punk scene: relationships with other similarly-minded peers, willing to do what it takes to accomplish the task at hand.

There’s a lot of confusion in librarianship about what constitutes DIY-ness. Can we clear that up and come to some sort of agreement as to what, how and why it matters to our current state of “work”?

Conclusion

This is a DIY panel and we want to hear it from you. Is DIY library culture a precursor to more traditional praxis? Or is DIY culture, as Micah claims, ultimately a subversion? Where is DIY culture taking our profession? What are the practical outcomes of DIY culture for professional achievement? Do you agree or disagree with some or all of what we’ve said? Tell us about it!

We want you to share your 1-minute videos, comments, and tweets before our panel at ACRL next week. Make sure you tag your responses with #diylib and be a part of something awesome!

]]>http://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2013/diy-library-culture/feed/16Open Ethos Publishing at Code4Lib Journal and In the Library with the Lead Pipehttp://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2012/open-ethos-publishing/
http://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2012/open-ethos-publishing/#commentsWed, 12 Dec 2012 11:00:50 +0000http://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/?p=4576

In Brief: The library world is deeply entrenched in the open ethos, yet there are few examples of library publications that engage in open editorial and peer review processes. In this article we discuss the challenges and opportunities posed by the open editorial processes used at In the Library with the Lead Pipe and Code4Lib Journal. To end, we discuss the need to grow open review and editorial processes in library and information science publications.

Thanks to Flickr user Fayster for use of this image.

The Open Ethos

Open source. Open access. Massive open online courses. Open government. Open data. Creative Commons licensing. These days open movements are everywhere. One might say that open is a fad or trope, but what happens in the world of open goes beyond any clichéd use of the word. With the prevalence of the open concept bridging from computer programmers to academia to democracies around the world, openness is now a pervasive ethos that has, for years, steadily gained momentum. One thing is certain: the open ethos is here to stay.

In the library and publishing field, open access has been a hot topic for quite some time. The library and information science (LIS) literature has discussed the need for an open and changing economy of academic and scholarly information for many years. Authors and publishers have engaged in discussions regarding the economics of journal publishing; many authors argue that current practices of pricing and access are unsustainable. Some authors have even proposed entirely new models of publication that are constantly changing and iterative (Perakakis, et al. 2010).

Open peer review, an emerging open movement, further opens journal publishing practices. It does more than promote free access to published content, it seeks to create open peer review and editorial processes. Open peer review is loosely defined, which caused an interesting discussion during this article’s peer review process. However, it is generally accepted that open peer review refers to non-traditional peer review processes that include disclosure of author and reviewer identities to one another. This is the definition assumed throughout the rest of this article.

There are many different ways that publications have approached open peer review. One way to quickly share research is via pre-print servers. arXiv—a pre-print community and server in physics that was started in 1991—is a great example. At arXiv authors submit articles to the pre-print server before peer review occurs. Once articles are accepted for publication at a journal, authors may replace the pre-print version on arXiv with a final version, as allowed by the terms of their author agreements with publishers. In this environment, articles must be posted by an author who has been “endorsed” by another arXiv community member. In 2011, Axel Boldt argued for arXiv to extend its process to become a true publication with an open peer review process.1

Some journals simply require reviewers to disclose their identities and conflicts of interest, much like British Medical Journal’sreviewer guidelines. Others, such as the journalAtmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP), work for a completely transparent review process. ACP publishes reviewer comments and author replies alongside final versions of accepted and published articles. Some of these reviewer comments are anonymous, while others are attributed. At ACP it is up to the referees whether they would like to disclose their identity. Either way, their comments are published. There is no one uniform way that journals engage in and implement open peer review.

Although more examples of open peer review exist within the sciences, social sciences and humanities have also begun to engage the open ethos and open peer review experiments. Currently, a second special issue of Shakespeare Quarterly using open review is underway. The first special issue used a “hybrid workflow” for the peer review process. It began with article vetting, performed by editors, and then opened articles to public peer review. In this public phase, authors’ and reviewers’ identities were disclosed. Finally, in its third and closed phase, editorial decisions regarding acceptance or rejection were made. (Fitzpatrick & Rowe, 2010). Other current experiments include PeerJ, a new model of open access publication- based on a membership fee- that encourages referees and authors to engage in an optional open peer review process.

Arguments in favor of open peer review cite numerous advantages for an open peer review process. One such advantage is that open peer review enables rich academic dialogue. Wendy Lipworth and her co-authors (2011) argue that their research “findings provide additional reasons … for allowing reviewers and authors to form direct personal relationships, for allowing reviewers to discuss their reviews with their colleagues, or for opening up the review process to broader participation” (p. 278). Similarly, several authors argue that open peer review creates a more rigorous review process than traditional peer review, thus ensuring the quality of published articles. (Mahrag & Duncan, 2007; Pöschl & Koop, 2004; Pöschl, 2008; Bornmann, et al, 2010). When reviewer comments are published, reviewers are held publicly accountable for the quality of their reviews. Additionally, Bornmann (2011) and his co-authors performed citation analysis of articles reviewed and published by Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, finding review quality is the same as other journals in the field, and that articles published by the journal are more highly cited. Boldt (2011) suggests that open peer review allows for a higher quality of referee comments than those written for closed review processes. Finally, open peer review enables publication process timelines to be substantially shortened (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009; Pöschl, 2008), thereby having quicker impact on research and academic communities.

So too, are libraries and librarianship part of the emerging open ethos. Our journals are no exception. Both In the Library with the Lead Pipe and Code4Lib Journal (C4LJ) use open peer review and editorial processes.2 In the rest of this article, we discuss the mechanics and experiences of open editorial and peer review processes at these journals, and make a case for the growth of open process publications in library and information science.

The Journals

Both In the Library with the Lead Pipe and Code4Lib Journal are open access publications governed by editorial groups. The journals publish under Creative Commons licenses and are dedicated to participating in the open ethos of publishing. While regular Lead Pipe readers may be familiar with its founding and history from reading editorials such as Have We changed the World yet? and The Survey Says, readers may not be as familiar with Code4Lib and Code4Lib Journal.

Code4Lib Journal is a part of the Code4Lib community, where open source, open access and open process are core identifying values of the group. The Code4Lib community includes anyone who self-identifies as a member. The barrier to participating in the community is low; the primary mechanisms are through the Code4Lib mailing list and Internet Relay Chat (IRC), supplemented by many regional meetings and an annual conference. While C4LJ began as a vehicle for more formal and durable information sharing in the Code4Lib community, even the preliminary discussions expected a global audience. C4LJ’smission defines its audience as anyone and everyone interested in “the intersection of technology and libraries.” Articles arrive in the journal’s inbox from several avenues: informal suggestions in the group’s IRC and at the group’s annual conference, personal solicitations from members of the editorial committee or Code4Lib community, and in response to announcements sent to other email lists. C4LJ’s reach is, indeed, global: it receives proposals from around the world.

The journal’s focus, however, is far from global. During the start up phase of C4LJ, the inaugural Editorial Board came up with a list of topic ideas for articles which seemed to fit the interests of the Code4Lib community, and listed them in the journals’ Article Guidelines section. The fact that the journal has a limited area of interest makes it look like a more traditional avenue of scholarly communication. The fact that it doesn’t have traditional peer review as one of its identifying features has led to some interesting queries and discussions at C4LJ.

In line with the Code4Lib community’s open ethos, everything about C4LJ is publicly available. Besides information published at the journal’s site, instructions and processes are detailed on the Code4Lib’s wiki. The wiki is a centralized place to keep everything documented and, most importantly for the editorial board, visible.

During its founding in 2008, one year after C4LJ’s, In the Library with the Lead Pipe’s Editorial Board was committed to openness. To that end, the Editorial Board wanted to use open source software and code and publish an open access journal that used creative commons licensing. Board members wanted to establish an open peer review process that mirrored the journal’s dedication to the open ethos; the Editorial Board looked to C4LJas an example of how to implement open peer review.

The Editorial Processes

In the Library with the Lead Pipe

The open peer review process at Lead Pipe begins with the formation of article topics. Although the Editorial Board sometimes receives completed articles as submissions, it is much more common for individuals to propose an idea for an article, rather than a completed article.

Frequently Lead Pipe Editorial Board members will share article proposals over its listserv. If the author is not an Editorial Board member, the Editorial Board member does this on behalf of the guest. Typically, the Editorial Board responds to article topic ideas with questions about the topic that aim to help focus the idea into an article of appropriate scope and relevance. The Editorial Board also shares with potential authors a framework document that poses questions aimed at helping potential authors think through their work. For example, when the Editorial Board discussed this proposal, a very useful email conversation ensued.

Emily: Hi everyone,

I have been thinking about my next post. I think I want to write about the peer-review process at Lead Pipe, and make an argument for why this is a great peer-review model and should/could be adopted for other peer-reviewed journals.

Thoughts?

Brett: I think this is a great topic, though I think our process should just be one of the ones included in the article. For instance, I’d like to

see code4lib represented…

I’d also like to see other journals represented as well. Just not sure which ones.

Micah: I’d like to read this too, especially with the inclusion of the code4lib voice. There is some movement in the scholarly communication world to experiment with open peer review – famously Shakespeare Quarterly ran a special issue using this method.

Erin: I love the idea and look forward to reading this. I can help review if you want!

From the outset peer feedback helped shape this article. Fellow Editorial Board members suggested the inclusion of a Code4Lib voice, and hence this article collaboration was born.

All articles published at Lead Pipe undergo review by at least one external peer reviewer and one internal reviewer. Normally, however, more individuals are involved. External peer reviewers are individuals who are not members of the Lead Pipe Editorial Board. Article authors are responsible for identifying and recruiting external reviewers for articles. Sometimes authors will ask the Editorial Board for recommendations on who might be well suited to review an article, but authors often find suitable peer reviewers themselves. This mirrors common practice in the sciences, when authors are often asked to recommend suitable reviewers for the articles they submit. Recruiting external peer reviewers for Lead Pipe has never been a problem, as there are plenty of smart, capable people all over the world. Since Lead Pipe attempts to reach a wide audience and to broach a wide variety of topics of interest, our community of potential and past peer reviewers is equally diverse; many reviewers have not even been librarians.

Peer review of Lead Pipe articles occurs in a variety of ways. While some reviewers may prefer to mark up a document in a word processing program, most frequently authors share a Google Doc with their reviewers (and the entire Editorial Board or its members who agreed to review the article).

Using Google Docs, reviewers make substantive comments discussing the content and organization of articles. By using a collaborative tool, article authors, editors and reviewers can read and respond to all commentary. In this environment many discussions have developed. Authors can respond to comments and directly ask for further clarification of comments. Sometimes reviewers disagree with one another, sometimes they agree. Sometimes reviewers agree with others’ comment, and expand on their ideas, asking additional substantive questions. Sometimes agreement is expressed by a comment that merely says “+1.” The peer review process at Lead Pipe is iterative and cumulative. The end product of its review process is publication of quality articles. Further, reader commentary on published articles complement and continue conversations begun by authors.

Several authors have discussed potential problems caused by publishing numerous article versions. (Prug, 2010; Bornmann et al, 2010). Versions of articles are difficult to track and may influence impact measures. Although article versioning is problematic, it provides a record of the intellectual labor put into the creation of an article. In traditional peer review this information goes unnoticed or could be entirely lost. Open peer review processes provide more acknowledgement of the intellectual labor of reviewing and editing. At Lead Pipe all peer reviewers and editors who have reviewed and edited articles are acknowledged at the end of each article.

Code4Lib Journal

Similar to Lead Pipe, the initial discussion on the Code4Lib list about starting a journal considered peer review options, including a suggestion to have articles vetted on an open wiki. In the end, general consensus was that peer review, whether open or traditional, (1) would slow down the process, (2) wasn’t necessary for the journal’s purposes, and (3) was effectively achieved by the process and makeup of the editorial committee.3

C4LJ’s mission simply states “to foster community and share information among those interested in the intersection of libraries, technology, and the future.” To that end, C4LJ requires that authors agree to the US CC-BY license (Creative Commons Attribution), which fit the journal’s goals of permitting the widest sharing possible while preserving authors’ rights to be acknowledged for their work. Authors are strongly encouraged to release code under a suitable open source license, recognizing that open source licensing is not always possible, or desirable, for authors.4 For the Editorial Board, publishing current, usable information is preferable to requiring open sourced code.

The most important factor for the Code4Lib community, including the journal, is transparency. While editorial discussions about articles are on a closed list, everything else about C4LJ is as open and transparent as it can be. The ethos within the Editorial Committee has been to quickly move non-editorial discussions about the journal to the open, public discussion list.

One of the goals of C4LJ is a quick publication cycle of eighteen weeks between the call for proposals and the publication of an issue. Although authors sometimes send completed articles to the Editorial Board in response to the call for proposals, what is more common is brief summaries of what will be covered and why it is important. If the summary is unclear, the Editorial Board and the author may engage in an iterative process to refine the ideas. Proposals are read and voted on by the entire editorial committee. If a proposal is accepted, one of the editors volunteers to shepherd it through the publishing process, and another editor volunteers to be the “second reader,” which insures that at least two sets of eyes are reading the drafts as they come in.

Editorial discussions of proposals and articles are probably the only parts of the Code4Lib community that are not open and completely transparent. Although a transparent editing process was discussed prior to start up, the editors wanted a forum where they would be free to speak their minds without repercussions. In essence, the editorial committee is a group of peer reviewers that discuss the merits (or not) of proposals and subsequent articles. Although each accepted proposal has an assigned editor and second reader, drafts are forwarded to the whole group for comments. Most importantly, proposals and drafts are provisionally accepted. Actual publication requires another vote by all the editors. Articles that pass the second vote typically have four to six editors that have read the final draft and voted in favor of publication.

Although the editors’ discussion list is closed, it is an open peer review process in the sense that the entire Editorial Committee is identified on C4LJ’s site. All of the editors, past and present, have strong backgrounds in computer technology, libraries and archives. When someone submits an article, they are getting über peer reviewed! There was a recent Editorial Committee discussion about going beyond simply identifying the members on C4LJ’s site, to identify the assigned editor who worked on each article. The biggest concern was that placing an editor’s name on an article might end up identifying the editor in metadata as a co-author.

It is apparent that Lead Pipe and C4LJ have many similarities in their open peer review processes. Both journals are organized by committees, are open in their decision making, and have placed value on openness in their publication and editorial processes. In short, Lead Pipe and C4LJ share the open ethos and embed it into their review processes. So how has it worked in practicality?

The Editorial Processes in Practice

In the Library with the Lead Pipe

Since Lead Pipe’s Editorial Board is a group that makes decisions using consensus, it expects the best intentions from its authors and Editorial Board members. Despite the positives of the review process at Lead Pipe, the Board has had some frustrating experiences. In one instance, the Board worked with an author, spending several hours to read an article draft and provide suggestions for improvement. The author even had a scheduled publication date for the article. However, the author stopped responding to the Editorial Board, missed the publication date, and several months later the article appeared in an entirely different journal.

The Editorial Board has also faced other challenges as it relates to Lead Pipe’s peer review process. One such challenge is editorial timing. As Editorial Board member Brett Bonfield put it, “Who sees what and when is always a difficult balance.” Since many of the Editorial Board members are also regular authors for the journal they, individually, struggle with how much they should edit others’ work. Questions arise, such as: “If we over edit are we doing so to the detriment of the author’s voice? Do we leave most of the content and organization commentary to the official peer reviewers, or do editors step in?” Likewise, when do editorial opinions step in over peer-reviewers? What is the boundary? In the peer-review process, sometimes the different roles between internal and external reviewer can get blurred. While internal reviewers usually provide more feedback in terms of editing for style, mistakes, and copy editing, they also chime in to discuss content and organization of articles. To what extent internal editors have freedom with what gets published is something that we find tricky, and something about which the Editorial Board has no written policy or rule.

Positive experiences with Lead Pipe’s peer review process far outweigh the negative ones. Board members have approached fantastic individuals out of the blue to ask if they would review or be involved with particular articles. Barbara Fister, Kathryn Greenhill, Paul Ford and Gina Trapani are a few examples. Although Board Members may have no personal connections to some reviewers, they have been willing to review and offer feedback of great quality about Lead Pipe’s ideas and writing. The Editorial Board has also been able to leverage our professional networks to identify talented reviewers with specialized knowledge about the particular topics addressed in articles undergoing review.

For authors the collaborative environment is supportive and nurturing. Lead Pipe wants to publish creative ideas, so rejections occur only when a) an author proposed an idea that will fit better in a different publication, or b) authors cannot adequately respond to questions and concerns about article content. The Editorial Board rejects publication proposals where the author wishes to remain anonymous. All in all, Editorial Board members work in a supportive role to authors who have ideas and thoughts that they would like to see published. If there are problems with the execution, Board members do their best to provide the editorial support and feedback to feel good about publishing the ideas as a final product.

As editors, it is beneficial for Board members and other reviewers to see one anothers’ comments. “I can see if we’re giving conflicting advice and address that. And I learn a lot from other editors’ comments” notes Ellie Collier, a Lead Pipe Editorial Board Member. Conflicting editor opinions allow authors to make informed choices about revisions and edits of their work. While an author may understand one editor’s objection to a statement or article organization, she may feel justified in revising less if there isn’t unanimous agreement among reviewers and editors.

One challenge that Lead Pipe still faces, is that of further opening up its editorial and peer review processes. Unlike C4LJ, Lead Pipe does not have a wiki organizing its process or documents. Rather, the Editorial Board relies on a mess of Google Docs explaining its processes. Some readers asked for more transparency regarding Lead Pipe’s peer review processes via the Reader Poll. However, the Editorial Board is currently working on publishing what it has. In a recent Editorial Board Google chat meeting, one editor stated, “FWIW, we weren’t opaque, just overwhelmed.”

This brings us to possibly the largest challenge of publishing Lead Pipe. All of Lead Pipe’s editors and reviewers are volunteers. The journal is a labor of love and many Lead Pipe tasks occur at home during evenings and weekends. From the beginning the project was very much a DIY one, and the Editorial Board still accomplishes what it does via a certain je ne sais quoi or scrappiness.

Code4Lib Journal

At C4LJ the Editorial Committee likes getting complete drafts as proposals, but believes requiring only an abstract level proposal for an article speeds up the publication process. Authors receive feedback fairly quickly about whether the Committee is interested in a topic or not. The Committee tries to hold to a thirteen week publication cycle from provisional acceptance to publication, which means a proposal submitted by the deadline may result in a very tight schedule for the author. This hasn’t generally been a problem since authors that submit proposals on the deadline typically are already working on a draft. Also, since the Committee sends out a formal call for proposals four weeks prior to the deadline, it begins receiving most proposals long before the deadline.

Discussion and voting begins as soon as proposals arrive. Once an article has the required majority of votes in favor (documented on a privately shared Google Spreadsheet), the assigned editor (self-selected) notifies the author of provisional acceptance and begins the process of moving the article toward publication. Article drafts are passed to the whole committee for review, but the assigned editor, with the second reader, takes primary responsibility for working with the author. Any comments by other Editorial Committee members are summarized and passed on to the author by the assigned editor. This cuts down on confusion that can be created by comments and notes coming from several different directions.

This process requires the author to do the bulk of the the work, with the editor helping to shape the article through comments and suggestions. Experience has taught Editorial Committee members to look carefully at submitted proposals and ask for clarification up front, or to simply reject the proposals and include commentary about what would make it more appealing. If what the Committee wants isn’t stated explicitly in the proposal, it’s going to end up being a lot of work for the editor to get the article to fit Committee expectations.

Communication with authors at the proposal level is usually limited and formal, but once a proposal is accepted, this quickly changes. The Committee typically chooses to edit the proposals about which it’s already excited, and is therefore eager to see them get published. During the process of reviewing a proposal, discussions sometimes get quite fervent, with one (or more) editors championing the proposal. For the Editorial Committee, the process of editing an accepted article really is a joint effort with the author to get it published.

The feedback the Editorial Committee has received from C4LJ authors, publicly and privately, has been overwhelmingly positive. Authors appreciate the collaborative process where they get feedback that helps them shape the draft and get the article ready for publication. C4LJ has been characterized, by those who have been through its editorial and review process, as being very author friendly. Authors appreciate the short publication cycle and typically see their articles published in four months or less.

From the perspective of the C4LJ Editorial Committee, the process has worked well. Articles are published quickly and the vetting process, where Committee members read and vote on a proposal rather than a much longer, completed article, works well for all members, who volunteer their time. For each issue, editors typically take one article as “assigned” and volunteer as second reader for an additional article. Individuals with more free time might take more articles to edit; those with less free time may only volunteer as second reader. The time factor does bite sometimes, when the Committee has to delay publication of accepted proposals because everyone is already at their limit editing articles for the current issue.

Thanks to Flickr user dullhunk for the use of this image.

Expanding Open Peer Review as part of the Open Ethos

Both C4LJ and Lead Pipe have been publishing with open review processes since their founding. The journals embrace an open ethos that disrupts traditional boundaries of publishing in LIS. Libraries are at the heart of the open ethos because librarians understand and embrace open information, open access and open source. Those values should be extended into the peer review process. Our aims are to publish high quality, high impact articles that have far reach and can be quickly disseminated among our communities. Our journals’ editorial and review processes have shown that open processes are sustainable. Put simply: this model works.

There is some inherent hypocrisy in the library profession when it comes to the open ethos. We want it for our patrons, but do we want it for ourselves? Just recently ACRL made the switch to publish College & Research Libraries and College & Research Libraries News as open access publications. ALA publishing, on the other hand, has not made any visible move toward open access. Other publishers of library journals, such as Taylor & Francis—whose subscription prices for social sciences journals are among the highest—will, arguably, be among the last to open their publications and their peer review processes.5 It is up to the small journals. Journals published by libraries and library organizations need to start the movement.

Library publications should be at the frontier of open peer review. Numerous library publications are already open access, so should consider how to open up the editorial and review processes. In doing so, these publications will continue information’s path to open and free dissemination. Journals need not emulate C4LJ and Lead Pipe, but might consider how open peer review will work for them. Revealing the names of referees alongside published articles is one way this could be accomplished. Journals should also consider publishing editorial and review process documentation.

If open peer review processes are to be adopted, it is up to you, readers and writers. Contact editors at publications you read and for which you write and let them know that you want to better understand the the publications’ editorial and peer review processes. Ask them questions such as:

Have you ever considered publishing a special issue that experiments with open access or open peer review?

Can you tell me more about your review process? How many individuals will be reading my work? How are your article acceptance and rejection decisions made?

Consider writing editorial pieces or columns addressing open peer review to the journals you read. These editorial pieces are often where such discussions begin. As with open access, when editors see that their readership and their content creators are interested in understanding processes, they will respond.

We can push our institutions and organizations toward the open ethos. If your place of employ has made the foray into journal publishing, approach those journals. If you’re involved in an organization such as ALA, ASIST, or SLA, ask publications committee members if they have ever thought about opening up review processes? If not, see if you can talk to a publications committee chair to express your enthusiasm for this idea. Maybe the committee will investigate it further or sponsor a workshop or panel investigating open peer review. Lastly, consider whether organizational or institutional bylaw changes may help promote opening editorial and peer review processes. If so, discuss this kind of movement with appropriate stakeholders.

Openness takes time and energy. Traditional publishing and review practices will not change overnight, and when they do change these changes are made after many conversations that have deemed doing so is the right thing. As readers, writers, members of professional organizations and members of institutional communities, it is up to us to broach the topic of open peer review.

For C4LJ and for Lead Pipe open peer review processes have produced high quality, high impact publications. We are helping to shape the open ethos in librarianship, and we invite you to help shape it, too.

Many thanks to Peter Murray, Brooke Johnson, Sara Amato and Hilary Davis for providing thoughtful feedback on this article. Additional thanks to In the Library with the Lead Pipe Editorial Board Members Erin Dorney, Micah Vandegrift, Ellie Collier, and Brett Bonfield for their comments.

Taylor & Francis, have, however, made recent steps to open their publications in the LIS fields. Their author agreements for LIS publications now allow authors to retain copyright of their works.

]]>http://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2012/open-ethos-publishing/feed/0What do we do and why do we do it?http://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2012/what-do-we-do-and-why-do-we-do-it/
http://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2012/what-do-we-do-and-why-do-we-do-it/#commentsWed, 08 Aug 2012 10:00:52 +0000http://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/?p=4173

In Brief: The library community should develop a philosophy of librarianship. In order to do so the community should engage in a dialogue about what we do and why we do it. Our history with the idea of a philosophy of librarianship is long, yet the library community hasn’t resolved the problem of what that philosophy (or philosophies) should be. Engaging in a reflective and philosophically-based practice of librarianship (a praxis of librarianship), one that frames decision-making and library work with the question: “what we do and why we do it?” will enable the library community to have successful conversations with those they serve. As a result, librarians will be invited to participate in important community decision-making efforts, and be able to further impact communities.

Introduction

It was a Big Deal. School librarians, in particular, were furious. When the New York Times published the article, Wasting Time is New Divide in Digital Era, listservs, blogs, Facebook, and Twitter lit up with librarians’ wrath. There was outcry and anger and hurt. The news was out that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was going to spend $200 million dollars to create a “digital literacy corps” in the form of a project called Connect2Compete.

“Looks like the FCC has no idea that our schools have a ready-made “digital literacy corps” in place.

Chairman Julius Genachowski was quoted in the article. He recognizes the importance of digital literacy, but he is ill-informed. He does not know that there are already trained professionals in many schools who work, against great odds at times, to train our students and who volunteer to teach parents these skills.

Let’s not let him claim ignorance before spending this money.”

Unfortunately, discussions such as this are not unique. Librarians are constantly explaining what they do (and what they can do) to their communities.1

Discussions similar to those surrounding the FCC debacle present themselves in small communities, within institutions, county and city governments. Librarians are absent from the table during important discussions when their expertise could be used. It’s possible that librarians don’t put themselves at the table, or institutions like the FCC don’t think to invite librarians to participate. In the end the result is the same. Librarians have lower visibility and powerful decisions are made without librarians. These decisions could be improved with librarian input from the get go.

More and more, public discussions regarding libraries and librarians have surfaced into the public sphere. Each time there is a ballot measure, each time budgets are slashed, each time librarians lose jobs, the library community must articulate its value, to prove that it is worth current investment, and to fight for greater financial and social investments in the future. The cuts keep happening in institutional, city, and county budgets. Libraries and schools lose valuable professionals, or are made to deal with budgets that have gone from bad to worse. In this environment, libraries, librarians, and their advocates are faced with tracking, documenting, substantiating, and articulating their value.

Value has been a hot topic for libraries for a while. In 2010, ACRL published LIS professor Megan Oakleaf’s study The Value of Academic Libraries, which outlined recommendations for academic libraries and librarians to further perceptions of value. These recommendations, by and large, focus on gathering data via assessment to track and show evidence of academic libraries’ value to their communities.

Similarly, the American Library Association’s Council recently passed a resolution in support of school libraries. Typical of value statements and documents, the resolution discusses evidence that school libraries and librarians have positive effects on student learning. For school librarians in Beaverton, Oregon, this resolution and the numerous discussions with the school board did not work; every teacher librarian has been cut from the district. Another example of value failing was published in Working Together: Evolving value for academic libraries, a SAGE study released in June that “found no systematic evidence of the value of academic libraries for teaching and research staff” (Creaser & Spezi, 2012, p. 1).

Despite the talk about value and impact, despite the resolutions and reports, jobs are getting cut, the FCC is working on Connect2Compete with some (but in many people’s opinions not enough) involvement by libraries, and librarians, and library advocates are left to assert what we do and what impacts we make until we are blue in the face. Either we are too busy ‘articulating our value’ to ourselves and not enough to external stakeholders, or our messages aren’t compelling enough to get results.

My aim here is not to contribute to the groundswell of victim rhetoric that surrounds the de-funding and de-professionalization of librarianship. Instead, I aim to shine a light on what I think is happening. Namely, we haven’t yet sussed out the philosophy behind what it is that we do.

Our conversations aren’t working because our language isn’t working. Our language isn’t working because our day-to-day thinking isn’t working. We should be engaging in a different conversation with ourselves and our community of library workers. We should individually and collectively reflect on the question: What do we do and why do we do it?

When we’re able to successfully engage in this dialogue we will be able to transform our practice of librarianship into a praxis2 of librarianship. As a result, our conversations with external stakeholders will include deeper meaning and will have greater impact on our communities.

In the rest of this article I will discuss historical and current conversations regarding what we do and why we do it. Then I will discuss our problems with language and make a case for how and why librarians should develop a praxis of librarianship.

A Philosophy of Librarianship

So how did we get to this crossroads? We currently communicate with our communities in a rapidly evolving information landscape. This landscape further necessitates our external conversations to focus on what librarians bring to their communities and the impacts we have on them. Despite the current tenor of these conversations, our internal dialogue regarding the philosophy of librarianship (i.e. what do we do and why do we do it) is not new. It goes back to the early 1900s, and possibly earlier.3

In 1934, James Periam Danton published “A Plea for a Philosophy of Librarianship” in TheLibrary Quarterly, in which the author asks that librarians engage in philosophical exercise to the end of creating a philosophy of life and subsequently, a philosophy of librarianship. Many of Danton’s readers, and certainly Lead Pipe readers, may argue that S.R. Ranganathan’s Five Laws of Library Science addresses a philosophy of librarianship. However, Danton dismisses this seminal work:

“But this treatise, as stimulating and interesting as it undoubtedly is, does not attempt to define the functions of library activity on any other basis than that of present-day good library service; the discussion is not an open-minded enquiry into the validity of functions and activities. Most of it is, furthermore, limited to public-library work.” (p. 532)

Danton concludes that any philosophy of librarianship should and must be “derived from the predominating ideals of that society. Consequently, before a library philosophy can be formulated, there must be an understanding and recognition of the ideals and purposes of the society into which that philosophy must fit” (p. 547). Although Danton did not himself offer any concrete philosophy, he asserted that any philosophy of librarianship would be a social philosophy that ties the library to its roots in democratic society.

This conversation has continued throughout The Library Quarterly’s publication history. More recently, in the late 1990s, another conversation regarding philosophy emerged. In his article, “We Don’t Need a Philosophy of Library and Information Science: We’re Confused Enough Already,” Jim Zwadlo (1997) addressed contemporary LIS literature in which positivism and reductionism were framed as a troublesome foundations for and practices of library science methods. In response, Gary Radford and John Budd (1997) reflected on Zwadlo’s assertions, concluding their comments with: “…we loudly advocate that we do need a philosophy of library and information science; we are not confused enough!” (p. 321).

Zwadlo (1998) responded, slinging around concepts of positivism and epistemology. “Do Radford and Budd want to replace positivism with another philosophy? Or do they want us to see all philosophies as useful, as all having something to offer? Perhaps we are quibbling over the term ‘alternative’ and do not really disagree” (p. 115).

Even ten years later (in 2008), when Dr. Robert Labaree (Head of the USC Von KleinSmid center Library for International and Public Affairs) and Ross Scimeca (Head of the USC Hoose Philosophy Library) published “The Philosophical Problem of Truth in Librarianship” the discussion continued. Right on the heels of this publication, in 2009, came Library Juice Press’s release of Andre Cossette’s 1976 French essay,Humanism and Libraries: An Essay on the Philosophy of Librarianship. In his introduction, translator, publisher and librarian Rory Litwin addresses potential reader questions such as “Why should American librarians be interested in a philosophical treatment of the foundations of the profession…?” (p. ix).

Litwin explains:

“Sound ideas about what librarianship is and what its goals are permit us to claim a degree of autonomy in institutions where we might otherwise serve as mere functionaries rather than as the professionals we are. Without a philosophical foundation, we lack a basis for making decisions regarding how to change our institutions in response to external forces, with the potential result that we do not play the role that we should in decision-making.” (p. ix-x).

This explanation mirrors the arguments outlined by Danton, Cossette, Budd, Labaree and Scimeca. At the risk of overgeneralizing, each of these authors point to philosophy as a practice that allows for external recognition of the library’s role in society and institutions, strengthens the esteem of librarians and the profession, and encourages a reflective and intentional practice of librarianship.

Despite this 80+ year old conversation, and the seeming agreement as to why and how a philosophy of librarianship would serve the profession, librarians and librarianship do not coalesce around a philosophy of librarianship. And perhaps this is not without good reason.

Our Librarian Identity Crises

We continue to struggle with the philosophy of librarianship in the 21st century even though the idea permeates our profession’s history. In the recent past, numerous individual librarians have written to grapple with what we do and who we are. A good example is Lane Wilkinson, an academic librarian with a Master’s in Philosophy, who asked (and answered) whether librarians were experts in a two-part blog post series over at Sense and Reference. In the day and age when technological advancement has challenged how we perceive what librarians do, we seem to be asking: What is a librarian?4

One of the problems that we face when it comes to finding a philosophy of librarianship, and likewise articulating our impact to communities, is that the umbrella of librarianship is gigantic. Librarian. When you begin to think about it, the word doesn’t mean anything, because it means too many things. Librarians are teachers and collectors and advocates and searchers and researchers and… Sound familiar?

In contrast to Booth, Cossette argued that librarians should frame themselves outside of the paradigm of our overarching institutions. He did not see librarians as educators or teachers, nor did he see them as scientists, but simply as Librarians. Furthering his argument, he points to the need for “librarian” to be defined and for the purpose or aim of libraries to be outlined.

In 2009 John Blyberg, Cindi Trainor, and Kathryn Greenhill (all three library workers and bloggers) composed and endorsed The Darien Statements on the Library and Librarians. These statements are an attempt to get at the bigger picture identity of the library and librarians; a potential answer to the question, “What do we do and what do we value?” The Statements outline the purpose of the library, in addition to outlining the role of the librarian within that purpose. Like Cossette, The Darien Statements point to the possible (and arguably, inherent) tension between libraries and the institutions or organizations in which they may be housed, although they do not go so far as to assert that the library is the same with or without an institution. “Individual libraries serve the mission of their parent institution or governing body, but the purpose of the Library overrides that mission when the two come into conflict.” Moreover, The Darien Statements aptly outline the purpose of the library, and separates the roles that libraries and librarians play in this paradigm.

There is certainly no lack of evidence that librarians are grappling with these questions. Another example is David Rothman’s 2011 manifesto,Common Sense Librarianship, wherein he discusses some basic qualities of information professionals. “The most important qualities an information professional can possess are adaptability, resourcefulness, a habit of looking for better/easier/more efficient ways to do things, creativity, and a love for solving problems.” Further, Rothman states that librarians should: “…adapt rather than perish” and “Information professionals should be champions of clarity and concision who find accessible ways to describe complex topics.”

Most recently, R. David Lankes, LIS Professor and library futurist, publishedThe Atlas of New Librarianship (2011) wherein he created a knowledge map of the profession, placing the Mission of librarians at the center. “The mission of librarians is to improve society through facilitating knowledge creation in their communities” (p. 13). Lankes argues that it is not a building that makes a library a library, but it is a Librarian that makes a library. “I have long contended that a room full of books is simply a closet but that an empty room with a librarian in it is a library” (p. 16). Lankes’ mission and resulting worldview of new librarianship enables librarians to create new social compacts with their communities, Lankes argues. It is these social compacts (that communities support librarians as long as librarians hold up their part of the bargain: to improve society by facilitating knowledge creation in their communities) that enable librarians and libraries to have meaningful conversations about the impacts and value they bring to their communities.

While Cossette offers definitions and aims for librarianship, contemporary works such as The Darien Statements and The Atlas of New Librarianship are more applicable for a current understanding and introspective practices of librarianship.

As evidenced by this handful of examples, the library profession is lacking consistent thinking and messaging about what it is that we do and who we are. Some definitions such as The Darien Statements spell out the mission of both the library and librarians, whereas others are concerned mostly with the Librarian.

It’s a Language Problem: Value vs. Philosophy

The language problems don’t end or begin with questions of the Librarian. There exists a complex disconnect in language between libraries, librarians, and librarianship. This becomes further complicated when we discuss the value of libraries and librarians. One need only think back to conversations about “articulating value” and be reminded of documents such as the Value of Academic Libraries report or ALA resolution I mentioned earlier. We’ve been trying for so long to discuss our value that the philosophy of librarianship hasn’t entered into discussions about our impact on communities.

We struggle with the difference between value and philosophy, so I think it is important to analyze, ever briefly, the differences. A basic philological investigation helps. The Oxford English Dictionary offers a good definition of philosophy: “The study of the general principles of a particular subject, phenomenon, or field of inquiry” (OED Online, 2012).

Definitions of “value,” on the other hand, discusses the worth, sum, or merit of work. It is inherently quantifiable, assessable, and deliverable. Whereas, “values,” (with an S) insinuates “principles or moral standards.”

Naturally, questions of philosophy delve deeper into meaning than the question of what value libraries bring to communities and what are librarianship’s shared principles. Rather, the word “philosophy” implies that one engages in introspection, quiet study, and open discourse. It is about periodically examining why it is that we do what we do.

In The Value of Academic Libraries Megan Oakleaf (2010) suggests that librarians “…need to collect new and different data” (p. 95) in addition to gathering existing data. She further develops this argument, showcasing how librarians might capture new data using existing products or developing new data collection products (pp. 95-96). In essence, the document itself points to how academic libraries and the librarians within them support their institutions. Any philosophical question framed in the document, returns to the question of how, rather than why. Concluding the report’s short section on “Societal Contribution” Oakleaf writes:

“Academic library contributions to society have not been widely identified or researched. However, once librarians know more about how they contribute to the primary areas of institutional missions—learning, research, and service—they can use the lessons they learn to assess the societal value of those contributions.” (p. 56).

Oakleaf herself shows our weakness—the lack of research or identification of our societal contributions. In essence, she demonstrates that the “why” hasn’t been adequately addressed.

This tension between the how and why is difficult. While funders may want to hear numbers and facts, would not a story about why we loan materials, teach digital literacy skills, or facilitate conversations in communities not have the same effect? How can we enhance the numbers with more robust language that speaks to why we do what we do?

It’s a Language Problem: Messaging and Catchphrases

Librarians don’t have a catchphrase, or not a good one, anyway. Doctors abide by the Hippocratic Oath: “first do no harm.” Police Officers “protect and serve.” These are universally identifiable phrases affiliated with the identity, purpose, and underlying philosophy of two very disparate professions. These are oaths or statements of practice, which are discrete and recognizable by the public at large. Herein lays the problem for librarians. What succinct and meaningful phrase do we have that will resonate with the public at large?

It’s not for lack of attempt, however. Cossette outlined the following: “Librarianship is the art and science of the acquisition, preservation, organization, and retrieval of written and audiovisual records with the aim of assuring a maximum of information access for the human community.” (p. 33). But I can’t imagine that this definition resonates with anyone outside of librarianship. Similarly, values statements such as the ALA Office of Intellectual Freedom’s Core Values of Librarianship, The Darien Statements, ALA’s Library Bill of Rights, ALA’s Motto: “The best reading, for the largest number, at the least cost,”5 and other ‘why librarians are important’ documents have not been able to make meaning for the public at large of librarians’ purpose and role in society.

We’re good at talking to one another and knowing what each other is saying. We have terms like information literacy, resource description, and information retrieval. But we can’t expect the general public to have a clue what any of those aforementioned phrases mean.

I don’t know that there is a good motto. At best, the catchphrases and mottos that we can craft are nebulous in meaning. At the 2012 Annual Oregon Library Association Conference, a colleague and I led a book discussion of Cossette’s work. In the discussion we tried to define a mission or motto for librarianship. Here’s what we came up with: “Librarians are facilitating for everyone the lifelong development and experience of human knowledge, culture, and discourse” (Participants of Humanism & Libraries: A book discussion, personal communication, April 27, 2012).

So how do we get the language to work? How do we work toward cohesive, clear, and succinct messaging to the public? I don’t think we can yet. We haven’t collectively been doing enough of the work to get there. Before we can begin to craft meaningful statements, we will need to continue to engage with the study of our profession philosophically. We will need to understand our personal practice of librarianship so that we can, in turn, translate it into meaningful conversations with our communities.

Librarianship is a Multi-faceted Profession

Zwadlo was right, we are incredibly confused. He asserted that confusion could be harnessed as a useful way to get things done—that confusion can aid librarians in creative thinking and problem solving. And I’m not sure that, despite many authors who are in agreement regarding the need for a philosophy, coming up with one unified philosophy of librarianship will ultimately serve the profession.

The fact is the breadth of librarianship is so vast that one unified philosophy couldn’t possibly capture the enormity of impact we bring our communities. Our umbrella is just too big and our communities too diverse. Cossette also points to the vast array of work librarians perform, from serving within elementary and higher educational institutions, to public libraries, archives, and preservation of human knowledge.6

So if finding and agreeing upon one unified philosophy of librarianship poses so many challenges, what can we do instead?

From Practice to Praxis

Instead of searching for a unified philosophy of librarianship, we should move from having a practice of librarianship to a praxis of librarianship.

In our long history of debate regarding a philosophy of librarianship, there are common threads in the discussion. From Danton in 1934 to Lankes in 2011 it is clear that librarianship should be a reflective and intentional practice.

“The philosophy of librarianship, then, is the theoretical integration of library practice as a unity, the encompassing understanding of the meaning of the profession. Through a method that is at once critical and reflective, it attempts to form a synthetic whole out of the disparate facets of librarianship to better direct its application.” (Cossette, p. 9).

To cultivate praxis is to remain curious about our practice and engage with it. It is to want to know internally and externally what is changing and what is steadfast in our profession. It is to think critically about our greater purpose and current goals when we make decisions. Praxis brings philosophical underpinnings to our daily routines and professional decision-making.

On a day-to-day level moving from practice to praxis will mean a shift in thinking. For example, during discussions and decision-making processes we may consider moving from one vendor to another. In practice we may choose to partner with a vendor whose pricing better reflects our budgetary constraints. In praxis, we may choose to partner with a vendor whose mission better aligns with our own, despite higher pricing. This seems simple enough. However, praxis manifests in the process of decision-making, not in the end result. To come to this decision, this fictional team of librarians had to weigh their options through a critical lens. They did not ask themselves, “What is our budgetary bottom line?” Instead, they asked themselves, “how will this decision/vendor align with our mission and goals?” Had these librarians not critically engaged with why they do what they do, they most likely would have partnered with a vendor with lower pricing.

When every library worker engages daily with the question, “what do I do and why do I do it?” we will be better situated to have meaningful conversations with one another. We will be able to better articulate amongst ourselves our goals and our missions. We will have a deeper understanding of the societal benefit we provide and we will better position ourselves when external conversations occur. Maybe, just maybe, we’ll be able to find common ground for a motto or phrase that perfectly identifies what it is that we do and why we do it.

A praxis of librarianship should be a daily and meditative exercise interwoven with our reference work, collection development, programming, teaching, and research. It is a way of being.

Conclusion

So why is the FCC putting so much money toward a Digital Literacy Corps without enough involvement from the library community? Because we don’t have the tradition of being engaged in a philosophical praxis of librarianship. Having a habit of thinking deeply and critically about what it is that we do and why we do it, on a large scale, would enable and empower us to create good language and hopefully, in turn, to influence on a large scale the perception and understanding of librarians’ value to and impact on society.

Repeatedly explaining librarians’ functions in society is a death march. According to Lankes, “Over time, functional views don’t and can’t capture the dynamic nature of the world. What’s more, they tend to lead to stagnation and the inability to adapt” (p. 21). Instead of having conversations about librarians’ function and value, we should have conversations about the why. Why we do what we do. Why, from a philosophical viewpoint, our work matters.

A first step in responding to any “crisis” or challenge in the profession—such as the FCC’s project that only nominally notices librarians; the issue of ebooks that Brett Bonfield, Lead Pipe co-founder and author so wonderfully discussed in The Ebook Cargo Cult; the elimination of budgets and jobs and de-professionalization that occurs with retirements—is to engage in a praxis of librarianship. As Lankes (2011) argues “…the very definition of our field, its perception, and its ultimate effect are in the hands of librarians–our hands” (p. 1). All library workers should be engaged in a praxis of librarianship. And it’s never too late to start.

The heavy lifting for this has already been done. Lankes’s Atlas, The Darien Statements, articles written by scholars in librarianship in the 1930s through to today, have lent themselves to a rich discourse on philosophy. If you haven’t engaged with philosophy, if your library practice hasn’t crossed the bridge from practice to praxis, read The Darien Statements. Read The Atlas of New Librarianship. Begin your praxis of librarianship from these standpoints. And begin to reflect. Every day.

Thank yous go out to: Kathryn Greenhill, Nathan Mealey, and John Jackson for their incredible input and ability to ask provocative questions. Additional thanks to Lead Pipers Erin Dorney and Eric Frierson for feedback on this post; and thanks to Brett Bonfield, Kim Leeder, and Ellie Collier, who listened to me ramble about this topic while trying to gather my thoughts.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines praxis as: “b. Conscious, willed action, esp. (in Marxist and neo-Marxist thought) that through which theory or philosophy is transformed into practical social activity; the synthesis of theory and practice seen as a basis for or condition of political and economic change. Also: an instance of this; the application of a theory or philosophy to a practical political, social, etc., activity or programme.” (OED Online, 2012).

While this may seem quite recent, remember that the first library school was created by Melvil Dewey in the late 1800s. Prior to this time, librarianship was a learned craft, with no one unified curriculum. ALA began accrediting schools of library science in 1925.

And as one of my peer-reviewers asked: “Or, is a librarian still a librarian?”

<rant>This motto is terrible! Is all that ALA, librarians, and libraries do in support of reading?</rant>

Introduction

Since Occupy Wall Street finally started getting mainstream media coverage, the idea of consensus decision-making seems to have permeated our American psyche. For me, it was waking up to a story on NPR’s Morning Edition that I couldn’t shake. The story featured a discussion of the group meetings and decision-making process occurring in Zuccotti Park, where protesters deliberated their need for sleeping bags (Chace, 2011)⁠. Despite the somewhat flip tone of the piece, it stuck with me.

The Occupy Librarianship trope hit the blogs a few weeks later, and we at Lead Pipe chimed in with our group post Occupy Librarianship: 5 Variations on a Theme (Bonfield, Frierson, Ford, Leeder, & Vrabel, 2011)⁠. Consensus was also on my mind at work. We had recently begun a search for a new University Librarian, so discussions about our visions for the library and qualities desired for incoming administrators had been abundant. (I even found myself wondering if we needed a human microphone in our Public Services Meetings.)

I began questioning what I thought I knew about consensus: In professional organizations and in the work places are we understanding and engaging in consensus decision-making in a way that is wholly democratic? Do we understand consensus decision-making theory? What does it look like in praxis? What potential does this decision-making process—which, in contemporary society, has been left to be practiced mostly by community action and social action groups—have for libraries?

In this piece I will discuss what I have learned about the praxis and theory of consensus decision-making; its benefits and pitfalls; and point to some examples. Then I will discuss what I think libraries can use and apply from consensus decision-making models.

What is Consensus Decision-Making?

Consensus decision-making is not a new concept or practice. In fact, it has been used for hundreds of years by Native American/First Nation groups and Quakers (Hare, 1973; InfoShop, n.d.; Rifkin, M., 2005).⁠ More recently, it has been used by anarchists; housing and food cooperatives; and other social action groups. Several publications have documented these group consensus processes, such as Martha’s Rules; Building United Judgment: A handbook for consensus decision making; On Conflict and Consensus: A handbook on formal consensus decisionmaking, and Consensus Decision Making. While each of these resources points to slightly different versions of the group decision-making process, they all follow a common thread of democratic decision-making practices. Peter Kakol (1995) designates “Equal access to political decision making for all” (para. 6) as the first of his Ten Anarchist Principles. He continues, “All those who are affected by a particular decision should be able to participate in the making of that decision” (para. 6). This sounds like what we commonly practice and understand as democracy, but it isn’t exactly what we practice.

Sager and Gastil (2006) point out that “democratic” majority rules decision-making is “…the most commonly used group decision rule in the United States” (p.2). Yet, majority-rules democracy enforces hierarchical relationships, pits sides against each other, and imposes a “pressure to conform” (Moscovici, & Doise. 1992; trans. Halls, 1994, p. 66). It creates winners and losers in each decision. Moreover, discussions preceding voting and majority-rules decisions can be greatly influenced by individuals’ social capital and authority in a group, and are tied to individuals present to participate in the decision-making process. In other words, what we have been understanding as democratic, is subject to disenfranchising individuals and re-enforcing power structures. Consensus decision-making attempts to rectify these problems.

I contend that the most common misconception regarding consensus decision-making assumes that decisions are reached unanimously. In fact, Sager and Gastil (2006) point to a difference between “consensus outcome” which implies unanimous agreement, and the “consensus decision rule,” which refers to a consensus decision-making process.

Process

Outcome

Majority Rules

Discussion occurs and a vote is taken. Votes fall on both or all sides of an issue.

The majority wins.

Consensus Outcome

Discussion occurs and a vote is taken, with all votes falling on one side of an issue.

Consensus is reached via voting; i.e. there is nothing to contend.

Consensus Decision Rule

“…is a complex, time-consuming social process” (Sager & Gastil, 2006, p. 3). It involves discussion of individual concerns. No vote is taken until all are comfortable moving forward.

All individuals can support the decision, based on discussions and concerns raised during the decision-making process.

Decisions reached via consensus decision-making are rarely unanimous. Instead, consensus means that a group works toward a common goal that supports a group’s collective vision and mission. “Of course, full consent does not mean that everyone must be completely satisfied with the final outcome—in fact, total satisfaction is rare. The decision must be acceptable enough, however, that all will agree to support the group in choosing it” (Avery, Auvine, Streibel, & Weiss, 1981, p. 1). ⁠Similarly, in his book Empowerment and Democracy in the Workplace, John Dew (1997) posits “…at any time, every group member is at least 70% comfortable with each decision the group has made” (p. 118). The difference between unanimity and consensus is that unanimity supposes all individuals agree fully on the action taken, whereas consensus stresses an individual’s support of a collective mission or vision. Even though and individual may not fully agree with the tactics taken to get there, she can support the decision.

One of the dangers of group decision-making–as addressed in numerous scholarly publications from social psychology and communications—is the concept of groupthink. Groupthink occurs when groups sacrifice dialog. Individuals potentially suppress concerns and differences in order to avoid conflict and achieve harmonious consensus. This results in group decisions that are potentially contentious and not those that best support the group’s end goal or desired outcome (Dew, 1997; Mohammed, 2001; Mok & Morris, 2010; Moscovici & Doise, 1992/1994; Solomon, 2006)⁠. Consensus decision-making processes attempt to avoid negative consequences from groupthink, social capital, authority, and social hierarchies. To accomplish this, groups must work to build respect and trust. In a trusting and respectful environment, discussion and conflict can occur and groupthink can be avoided.

In fact, consensus cannot exist nor can it be achieved without conflict. In Conflict & Consensus, Moscovici and Doise (1992/1994) point to numerous studies showing that the stronger the conflict and disagreement in a consensus decision-making process, the more sticking-power resulting decisions have. Additionally, scholars have shown that the greater the conflict involved in problem-solving and decision-making, the more creative the solutions and decisions (Mohammed, 2001; Moscovici et al., 1992/1994; Murrell, Stewart, & Engel, 1993; Troyer & Youngreen, 2009)⁠. Those decisions made via consensus achieve more buy-in, and in the end result in greater success due to the collective support for decisions.

There are two interrelated aspects of consensus decision-making that must exist and function well in order for the process to be successful. First, individual participation in the decision-making process must occur. Second, conflict must arise and be resolved. Without participation and its proportional resulting conflict, consensus decision-making would not be a successful form of decision-making; the process is key to its success.

In consensus decision-making, like other decision-making processes, conflict is managed in the form of open discourse. Participants are expected to engage in active listening and respect each individual’s contribution to discussion. Moreover, consensus decision-making should center on solving problems faced by the collective, not the individual.

“Consensus decision making works best when the participants believe they belong to the group, and the group belongs to them. This group solidarity develops out of mutual trust and respect. As trust and respect grow within the group, members will feel free to express opinions and feelings, and to disagree without fear of consequences.” (Avery et al., 1981, p. 85)⁠

If members of a consensus group are not working toward the same goal, or they do not feel ownership and accountability for the success and well-being of the group, consensus decision-making will not work.

So what does a consensus decision-making process look like in praxis?

As mentioned earlier, there are many different forms consensus decision-making can take. In my research I found the process outlined in Building United Judgment, (Avery et al., 1981)⁠ to be the most thorough and appealing. The second chapter, “A Step-by-Step Process for Consensus” thoroughly outlines the process from preparation to final decision.

Like many group decision-making processes, it begins with agenda setting and identifying a facilitator for the process. Agenda items should be clearly defined and should state decisions that need to be made. After agenda items are introduced, discussion occurs. Discussion consists of individuals presenting ideas as a response to the issue at hand, concerns and opinions about the issue/proposal, and responses to what has already been said.

It is the facilitator’s responsibility to keep discussion on topic, provide clarification and rephrasing of discussion, summarize points, and ensure that all voices are heard and understood by the group. After discussion, the facilitator will test for consensus, making sure to summarize what has been most positively discussed as a solution or action. At this point more concerns can be raised and discussed, and consensus may be met, even though it may not fully appease everyone at the table. However, “…it must be one that all group members are willing to live with” (Avery et al., 1981, p. 13).⁠

In addition to the discussion process, any group member may choose to block an action or decision. “Blocking is a statement of the great seriousness of someone’s objections to a decision. In practical terms, it is a strong indication that the group requires more time to reach consensus” (Avery et al., 1981, p. 29). (For more on blocking, read Laird Schaub’s (2003) short piece: Blocking Made Easy (or at Least Easier): Taking a look at the dynamics of dissent and Mary Ann Renz’s (2006) The Meaning of Consensus and Blocking for Cohousing Groups.)

My explanation of the process is certainly an oversimplification.There are many other aspects built into consensus groups, including group building, problem solving, and even evaluation or assessment of a group’s decision-making process.

Martha’s Rules, which can be used as an alternative to Robert’s Rules of Order, is another consensus-based process. It outlines a five-step process for decision-making featuring separate steps for a “sense vote” and a “vote vote.” “The point of the sense vote is to discover how the group feels about a proposal” (Minahan, 1986, p. 54)⁠. The sense vote asks: who likes the proposal, who can live with the proposal, and who is uncomfortable with the proposal. In contrast, a “vote vote” is to:

“…find out what those who are “uncomfortable” are uncomfortable about and then find out whether the group as a whole wishe(s) to decide by majority rule. The facilitator asks those who (are) uncomfortable to state the reasons for their discomfort….After hearing the objections of those who are uncomfortable, a vote is taken. The question is, ‘Should we implement this decision over the stated objections of the minority, when a majority of us feel it is workable?’” (p. 55)

There are numerous other variations for consensus decision-making, from the Quaker and Native American traditions to processes developed and used by small social action groups for governing meetings and decisions. Generally, consensus decision-making takes into account the reasons individuals may disagree, and embraces conflict resolution in discussions. It is more democratic and group-oriented than a majority rules process. Groups using consensus decision-making have stronger collective ties and accountability for the success of their organizations.

It can’t all be coming up roses, can it?

Photo used with permission of the artist, Faulkner Short

Chances are your work groups and teams already use some form of consensus to make decisions and govern the work of your library. Consensus decision-making is a fantastic process when it works, but it certainly has its drawbacks.

First, consensus decision-making takes a long time. For each individual in a group to voice her concerns and for group members to respond can be a lengthy process in small groups, and even lengthier for large groups. For small groups, such as Lead Pipe’s Editorial Board, consensus can work extremely well. The larger a group, however, the more likely the process is to break down into groupthink.

What’s more, sometimes decisions need to happen quickly and simply cannot wait for a consensus process. Who will make decisions that need to occur quickly? In this situation, one hopes that a decision-maker remains true to the group’s collective vision, and can respond on behalf of the group.

Another issue is that of participation and social dynamics. Group members should feel safe to talk openly about their concerns, and each individual should actively participate by speaking and listening during the decision-making process. When individuals dominate meetings or do not engage in active listening, the consensus process breaks down. Implicit in social dynamics are hierarchies, power, elitism, and privilege that can contribute to dysfunction and invisible power dynamics in consensus decision-making (Freeman, J., n.d.). Therefore, individuals need to be aware of these pitfalls, and be dedicated to creating an environment that enables consensus decision-making processes, even at times when decisions do not need to be made.

What’s more, library culture is stereotypically conflict averse. Being a service-oriented profession, library workers aim to help people, not disagree with them; so it makes sense that our culture might feel uncomfortable with conflict. Individuals may be hesitant to participate in discussions, and in doing so, open up meetings and discussions to be dominated by those who are more vocal. Due to this aversion, library groups attempting to engage in consensus decision-making are at great risk of running into groupthink.

Group composition can also hinder consensus decision-making. Groups may be comprised of a mix of administrators and workers, which, for some individuals may stymie participation and feelings of safety. What’s more, consensus may break down if all individuals who will be affected by decisions are not involved in the decision-making process. Libraries are not immune to this dilemma. How frequently do teams of administrators or professionals make decisions that impact classified staff, student workers, and others who weren’t part of the discussion or decision-making process?

External factors challenging consensus decision-making in libraries are those organizational structure imposed on libraries by their governing bodies. Cities, counties, corporations and universities—those bodies to which most libraries report—are typically structured hierarchically, with departments and committees reporting up the chain of command. Frequently libraries in these organizations mirror this structure. This does not mean that consensus decision-making cannot occur, however, the process must co-exist and function within a larger structure that may not fully support the consensus decision-making process.

It may be that your working group uses consensus to make decisions while the entire organization does not. It may happen that your team makes a decision, which is then reported up to administration. Administration may either support, modify, or rescind the decision. This might feel disempowering and you might see it as an abrogation of your group’s value within the library. In this case, it would make sense to open dialog with administration to discuss this outcome. Perhaps administration’s reasoning is strong enough, that if it were presented via a consensus process, your group’s decision may not have had the same outcome.

Despite these challenges, consensus decision-making seems to be a promising possibility for libraries.

Moving Toward a Consensus Model

Libraries are institutions that have historically been dedicated to the free and open exchange of ideas. In their current form, they work collaboratively with their communities, establishing and maintaining consortial relationships, and providing a supportive space for dissent and discourse. It is only intuitive that libraries could operate with the same machinations of open discourse and decision-making processes, much like the collective in Zuccotti Park. For libraries consensus decision-making can create strong organizations that will encounter great future successes.

In 2005 Barbara Fister and Kathie Martin presented their paper Embracing the Challenge of Change through Collegial Decision-Making (Fister & Martin, 2005)⁠ at ACRL, which offers a different model for libraries. In it, they describe their library’s reorganization into a flat organizational structure. “Rather than have a director we would elect a chair every three years as other departments did. The chair, as ‘first among equals,’ would add the tasks for coordinating the library’s efforts and liaison with the administration to his or her portfolio” (p. 4). Fister & Martin present a model in which their library is governed by consensus not only in faculty groups, but by classified staff as well. Of their organizational chart they say, “This new chart, two overlapping circles of responsibilities…erased the old vestiges of hierarchy lodged in nominal supervisory roles given to librarians over paraprofessionals and showed the collegial conversation extended to the entire library staff” (p. 4). Gustavus Adolphus College’s library is certainly a creative example of how librarians and library workers have engaged in a consensus model.

Despite the challenges of implementing consensus decision-making in libraries, it should be well worth it. There are a number of things you could do to try to work toward improving consensus decision-making in your library:

Talk to your library director, your supervisor, your mentor, your colleagues about the idea of consensus decision-making and see what they think.

Evaluate your current decision-making model. Does it work for your group? Would group members be open a more consensus-based model?

Get training in good meeting facilitation practices for group members. You and your colleagues could learn active listening and other communication skills that contribute to successful consensus decision-making.

Try to work on embracing conflict and productive discussions in meetings. Work toward creating a safe and respectful environment where each individual feels safe discussing her concerns in a group.

Try using Martha’s Rules next time you hold a meeting.

Libraries can be very siloed organizations. How often are public services staff involved in cataloging, acquisitions, and electronic resources management decisions, and vice versa? What will happen when catalogers are alongside instruction librarians thinking of new approaches to resource discovery? Consensus can open opportunities by deconstructing silos and starting to create new models for library decision-making.

Libraries that successfully engage in consensus decision-making will see improvement in making decisions that best serve their patrons; more cohesion in staff and accountability; and are likely to experience more creativity in problem solving. Individuals in these libraries will most likely become more dedicated to serving the organization and working towards its shared vision and mission. The reason these changes may occur, is that the decision-making and visioning is shared—individuals all contribute to the definition of and accomplishment of goals. Individuals would begin creating and environment of respect and trust, enabling them to participate in a democratic decision-making process.

What has been your experience with consensus?

Many thanks to Barbara Fister, Robert Schroeder, Gretta Siegel, and Sarah Ford for providing perspective and thoughtful comments on this piece. Additional thanks to Erin Dorney, Hilary Davis and Brett Bonfield from In the Library with the Lead Pipe for copyedits and even more thoughts. And finally, a shout out to Faulkner Short for letting me use his image in this post. He takes stunningly beautiful photographs.

Fister, B., & Martin, K. (2005). Embracing the Challenge of Change Through Collegial Decision-Making. Currents and convergence: navigating the rivers of change: proceedings of the Twelfth National Conference of the Association of College and Research Libraries, 12, p. 1-7).Retrieved from http://homepages.gac.edu/~fister/ACRL2005paper.pdf

Freeman, J. (n.d.). The Tyranny of Structurelessness. Retrieved January 20, 2012 from http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm

Schaub, L. (2003). Blocking Made Easy (or at Least Easier): Taking a Look at the Dynamics of Dissent. Communities, (119).

Solomon, M. (2006). Groupthink versus The Wisdom of Crowds : The Social Epistemology of Deliberation and Dissent. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 44(S1), 28-42. doi:10.1111/j.2041-6962.2006.tb00028.x

The Authors Guild won’t give up. Their settlement agreement with Google Books was rejected by Judge Chin on March 22nd and will now be going to trial. But that’s not enough for the Authors Guild. The organization seems bound and determined for copyright legislation to occur, and for that legislation to change copyright law to be much more conservative and restrictive for libraries. In concert with their Australian and Quebecois counterparts – the Australian Society of Authors and the Québec Union of Writers – the Authors Guild has filed a legal complaint against HathiTrust, an organization of partner libraries that is collaboratively sharing and archiving millions of digitized works.

The filed complaint cites HathiTrust as making the “largest copyright infringements in history” (Rosenthal, E. H. & Goldman, J. S., 2011). Furthermore, the complaint argues: “Rather than heeding the Court’s words, and allowing Congress, acting in the interest of all communities, to determine the requirements and safeguards that will govern the use of digital libraries and orphan works, Defendants have instead proceeded on their own authority, ignoring the interests of copyright holders” (Rosenthal, E. H. & Goldman, J. S., 2011). It further claims that HathiTrust has exploited works by surpassing the rights allowed of them in Sections 107 and 108 of copyright law– Fair Use and preservation, respectively.

James Grimmelmann offers a nice, succinct explanation of the claims on his blog.

“The complaint alleges that the universities and HathiTrust are violating copyright owners’ rights by scanning, duplicating, and distributing their books. It doesn’t ask for damages, but it does request a declaration that what the defendants are doing violates the law. It also seeks an injunction to stop them from further scanning or displaying the books, and to “impound” the digital copies — i.e. have them held in escrow where the defendants can’t get at them.” (Grimmelmann, 2011)⁠

Essentially, the Authors Guild complaint is bringing to the fore the very aspects of copyright law that permit libraries to perform their day to day functions.

I cannot claim to fully understand the nuances of copyright law, nor can I suppose that I understand everything about this case (I am not a lawyer).What I can claim to know is that events such as this shake up our profession and challenge how we think about the work we do in libraries everyday. It renders to the forefront of our minds questions such as: How we will be able to provide unfettered access to information that has yet to be created? Will legal issues halt our work and at what cost to our patrons? At what cost to society as a whole?

In light of this case and in the current copyright climate– which seems rife with tension between creators, content providers and libraries– the library community needs to be thoughtful about how to grow into an unknown copyright future.

Before I continue I’ll provide some brief background regarding the parties involved in the case.

The Parties

HathiTrust & Universities

HathiTrust was born out of libraries’ collaboration with Google to digitize books. Those libraries who loaned Google books received digital scan and metadata files from Google. Some of the libraries working with Google had an agreement with the company that they could create a digital archive accessible to their communities. From this, HathiTrust was created.

Works contained in the HathiTrust Digital Library include orphan works, those in the public domain, and works still under copyright protection. HathiTrust has measures in place for users from different institutions to authenticate and have permissions to view in copyright titles. Guests or users from institutions that do not own a physical copy of a copyright protected title, do not have permission to view full text of those works.

HathiTrust had scheduled to make several hundred orphan works available to users on October 13th. University of Michigan Library has postponed their release of orphan works (which were to only be available to users whose home libraries own the physical item) due to flaws in their system of determining what works are orphans. For example:

“In a post on its blog this week, Authors Guild representatives noted that author J.R. Salamanca’s 1958 novel The Lost Country was on the list. Librarians did not elaborate on how the book made the orphan list. A record search shows that the book was copyrighted in October, 1958, and was renewed in December 1986—seemingly a month late to keep the book’s 28-year copyright from lapsing. But, in one of many quirks in the complex copyright laws, books copyrighted between 1950 and 1963 have more time to renew, until December 31of the 28th year. The book has been long out of print.” (Albanese, 2011)

There have been other cases on the list of orphan works for which individuals were able to readily find copyright holders. One would surmise, however, that should HathiTrust be notified that a copyrighted work had been made public, HathiTrust would have processes in place to disable public access to that content. (HathiTrust does have a take-down policy.)

In addition to naming HathiTrust as a defendant in the case, the lawsuit names five universities. They are: University of Michigan, University of California, University of Wisconsin, Indiana University, and Cornell University. Grimmelmann points out in his blog post that “All of the named universities except for Indiana have announced their plans to participate in HathiTrust’s Orphan Works Project. The other members of HathiTrust, including Universities that are participating in the Project (e.g. Johns Hopkins and Florida) but are not Google Books Library Partners, are not named as defendants” (Grimmelmann, 2011)⁠.

The Authors Guild

The Authors Guild is an organization of writers whose mission is to provide copyright advocacy work on behalf of its members. In addition to suing Google for the Google Books Search, it has been a party in lawsuits against Dialog, Gale, and others.

Current Authors Guild President Scott Turow is featured as a library advocate on a poster produced and sold by ALA. Moreover, his editorial of February 15th this year decries budgets cuts to libraries. It is ironic that he is such an avid library supporter, and yet his organization is asking for HathiTrust to cease its operations.

In a letter to Authors Guild members, Turow addresses the guild’s stance on copyright. His language borders on hysterical.

“The Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s “safe harbor” for online service providers has turned out to be an exploitable gold mine for unscrupulous online enterprises. That safe harbor allows these rogue enterprises to profit from services that encourage and conceal the trafficking in stolen books, music and movies, while disclaiming responsibility for that illegal traffic. The DMCA safe harbor has turned copyright’s incentives inside out, encouraging massive, global investment in piracy technologies and services.” (Turow, 2011)

What Turow seems to be implying is that, in addition to allowing easier copyright infringement, the HathiTrust system is encouraging online providers to take advantage and to make a profit, and then claim that they are not responsible.

Although in his letter he cites libraries as positive examples of how copyright can function. “Our great research libraries, holding the carefully crafted thoughts, composed over billions of hours by many of our nation’s finest minds, are ample proof that copyright has succeeded brilliantly” (Turow, 2011). Although Turow is a self-professed library advocate, he does not seem to understand that, in practice, libraries and librarians make all attempts to respect and protect copyright. The lawsuit against HathiTrust appears to lump libraries into this category that Turow repeatedly refers to as “pirates.”

HathiTrust already has measures in place to protect copyrighted works via authentication. In general, libraries and librarians work hard to respect copyright law. Usually authors and libraries are on the same side, wanting to ensure access to works, but also respecting copyright law. So where is the breakdown between the two?

The Authors

In addition to the Authors Guild and other author associations, eight individual authors are named plaintiffs in the lawsuit against HathiTrust. They are: Pat Cummings, a children’s book author; novelists Angelo Loukakis, Roxana Robinson, Danièle Simpson, and Fay Weldon; André Roy, a poet; James Shapiro, Columbia University professor and scholar; and biographer T.J. Stiles.” Each of these authors except for Fay Weldon, are executive board members or are governmental representatives in their respective organizations. But there are two of these authors whose other associations are compelling to me when thinking about this particular lawsuit.

James Shapiro

James Shapiro is a professor at Columbia who is a prominent scholar on Shakespeare. He is a member of the Authors Guild Board of Directors and he is the only academic author named in the case. Columbia is also home to Dr. Kenneth Crews, Columbia’s Copyright Advisory Office Director, and the Columbia University Library, which is a HathiTrust member.

Columbia University Libraries were one of the first institutions to join the HathiTrust (aside from founding institutions University of California and CIC institutions) in 2009. Columbia’s Copyright Advisory Office’s “central function is to address in an innovative, creative, and pragmatic manner the relationship between copyright law and the work of the university community” (Columbia University Copyright Advisory Office, 2011). Shapiro has one work cited in this suit, Oberammergau. In fact, the imprint of the book as seen in Google Books, shows him as copyright holder.

The relationship between copyright law and university professionals is a complicated matter. Many institutions have policies that indicate the university is sole copyright holder for many works created under the auspices of teaching and university related work. This is called “work for hire.” For other works, such as scholarly writing and contributions, most universities consider authors the copyright holders of those works. Columbia is not an exception. “By longstanding custom, faculty members hold copyright for books, monographs, articles, and similar works as delineated in the policy statement, whether distributed in print or electronically. This pattern will not change. This copyright policy retains and reasserts those rights” (Columbia University, 2000).

It will be interesting to see how this tension between one of Columbia’s prized faculty members and a HathiTrust member institution plays out. Has Shapiro put himself at odds with his academic community via his ties to the Authors Guild and this lawsuit?

This situation at Columbia is a great opportunity for library outreach to authors, and to provide copyright education programming. It would be interesting to hear a panel debate regarding academic authors’ understanding of copyright, their views on the HathiTrust lawsuit and the book publishing industry. Since Shapiro is a named author in the case, he is surely not able to engage in programming in this way. At the same time, other faculty may be open to participating and engaging, in consort with the library, the Scholarly Communication Program and the Copyright Advisory Office.

Other libraries may want to seize this opportunity to engage with academic authors and their communities. Hosting a public debate between an academic author who sides with the Authors Guild and one who does not, might be of interest to a community.

Bullying?

I can’t help it but this whole thing is making me think of the It Gets Better campaign. The big dogs are bullying the little guys, and the little guys are just trying to be who they are and do what they do.
I usually cheer on authors and other creators who actively pursue protecting their copyrights. It’s how we librarians work with academic authors, advising them to keep their copyrights when publishing in academic journals and negotiating with publishers for more favorable license agreements. (Favorable license agreements allow authors to keep their copyrights, instead of transferring all copyrights to a publisher.) It’s what libraries do when they take on the publishing role as academic journal publishers or repository managers. A good example of this is Pacific University, where several open access journals are hosted on the library’s repository infrastructure. It is in these ways that libraries work with authors to show respect for and assist in copyright issues. One of the main differences that I see between this kind of work and the lawsuit, however, is the distinct lack of academic or scholarly authors represented by the Authors Guild.

Here’s an example from outside the library world that makes me cheer on the creator. Bijijoo (not everything on this site is safe for work), an artist and a friend of mine, is pursuing NBC for their repeated infringement of his copyrights. Bijijoo is not in consort with a guild or an interest group. He is a humble artist attempting to pursue his rights. He just wants the recognition, and as his first letter states, he just wants to give Tina Fey a painting that depicts her holding a ham. Oh, and he wants NBC to acknowledge their copyright infringement. Bijijoo is a little dog who’s not afraid to stand up to the pack.

In the HathiTrust case, the Authors Guild is coming across as as a bully. An organization that represents authors’ monetary interests and an almost hysterical fear of piracy, is going after university libraries. To me this smells of a case of the big dogs going after the runts.

This case is exemplary of a mindset regarding copyright that is becoming more widespread. Publishers like HarperCollins have locked down ebooks; Amazon hasn’t yet published their ebooks in epub format (Perlow, 2010); orchestras can’t perform Shostakovich; and groups like the Authors Guild, the American Association of Publishers, and numerous others point to a fearful climate surrounding copyright. To this end, I wonder to what extent the Authors Guild (or any other representative organization) actually supports individual authors’ interests. Siva Vaidhyananathan commented on Grimmelmann’s post:
“James, Thanks for this. But please don’t call the Authors’ Guild “the authors.” We authors have never and will never be represented by the Authors’ Guild. Siva”

It is unclear whether the Authors Guild as an organization, considers itself a big dog. Certainly, as the preceding quote by Vaidhyananathan indicates, authors alone do not. As with any large membership organization, the Authors Guild operates under the guidance of a board, executive director, and legal counsel. Certainly within our own profession, our organizations have taken action or made statements with which we, as individuals, disagree. The question remains, to what extent does the Authors Guild represent members’ interests? Have they gone too far and will there be a movement from membership to leave the organization?

What actually happens in the HathiTrust Digital Library?

I wanted to see exactly what happened when a user of the HathiTrust Digital Library looked at a record for a copyrighted book. I used an example by Pat Cummings (one of the plaintiffs and the Author Guild’s Secretary).

Search Results for Pat Cummings Books in HathiTrust

Record View of C.L.O.U.D.S. in HathiTrust by Pat Cummings

Text Search of C.L.O.U.D.S. by Pat Cummings in HathiTrust

As you can see from the screenshot above, a search of the text of C.L.O.U.D.S. does not show snippets of the book. See the snapshot from Google as a comparison.

C.L.O.U.D.S. in Google Books

Another example of HathiTrust content is that of something in the public domain. Just this week I helped a patron find a digital copy for The Seven Golden Odes of Pagan Arabia in HathiTrust Digital Library. The patron wanted to download and print the book, but we discovered that we did not have sufficient rights to download the entire digital copy, although we could view the entire text.

These restrictions mirror what happens in physical libraries and with their borrowing policies. A patron unaffiliated with my institution is welcome to read through a book in the library building, but unless she pays to become a public patron of the library, she may not borrow materials.

Some Discrepancies

Several of those who have already written about this new lawsuit, have pointed to a discrepancy in what the Authors Guild sees as the purpose of copyright law. In her editorial Francine Fialkoff points to this discrepancy. “It’s also a subversion of copyright law, which protects library fair use. Despite the extensions of copyright protection over the past couple of decades, copyright was never meant to protect authors or inventors indefinitely. Instead, as Fister reminds us, it aims to promote the public good, “the Progress of Science and useful Arts.” “What is more troubling to me,” she says, “is…that copyright is being read as a one-sided right: for authors…as a moral right, not as a balance of interests recognized by law”” (Fialkoff, 2011).

Part of what is so frustrating about this lawsuit is that libraries and library collaboratives would not exist without the creative works produced by authors, musicians, and other creators. And likewise, many authors advocate for libraries. Just look at the Authors for Libraries partnership via ALA. Librarians and the Authors Guild agree that copyright law does not address the multitude of uses or technologies prevalent in our societies. Take, for example, the now classic ebook problem. A library purchases an ebook, but it has a limited number of loans. Similarly, print books are loaned until they become too damaged by dog teeth, coffee spills, loss, or disasters. While physical books are by no means permanent, their tangible nature instill in us a comfort of the illusion of perpetuity. So, is buying an ebook and loaning it to patrons until irreparably damaged or lost (not via DRM, mind you) a violation of copyright law?

Copyright law is, by its nature, subject to multiple and layered interpretations. The minute we legislate and create more distinct copyright rules, libraries will potentially be more restricted in how they are able to provide their services. Does the Authors Guild really want to restrict libraries’ ability to provide good service and access to authors’ works? Do authors want to engage their readers and create rich intellectual experiences? When will the bullying stop?

The phrasing used by Turow in his letter to members represents fears driven by money. It points to the effect of digital content on the market and authors’ purported monetary losses.

“One is tempted to call it a vast underground economy, but there’s nothing underground about it: It operates in plain sight, as I will describe. Money suffuses the system, paying for countless servers, vast amounts of online bandwidth, and specialized services that speed and cloak the transmission of stolen creative work. Excluded from this flow of cash are the authors, musicians, songwriters and the publishers who invest in them.” (Turow, 2011)⁠

Turow’s letter concentrates on the evils of file sharing and the networked nature of information in a global age. In light of the HathiTrust lawsuit, is the Authors Guild equating the libraries with BitTorrent?

So what are we to do?

Because of the nature of their work, libraries are those institutions that push copyright to its limit. The HathiTrust lawsuit presents us with the opportunity to re-examine copyright in our daily work lives. What DO you know about copyright? What is your institution’s policy? Are you making use of Fair Use? Individual librarians may feel ill-prepared to answer these questions, so it’s a perfect time to seek out your local Scholarly Communication Librarian and Access Services Librarian to refresh our memories.
Last year a copyright slider showed up in my inbox and every other librarian where I work received one as well. This seems to be an affordable way to show your employees that you expect them to be able to practice their craft.

Now is a good time for library schools to respond to libraries and the current copyright climate. Library school students who learn about copyright law as applicable in library work, will be better prepared to address issues facing them in their professional lives. I’d be willing to bet that no ALA accredited library school requires students to learn and show proficiency in understanding copyright in libraries. Our profession would be better off if they were.

When I was a student I took a 1.5 credit workshop on copyright– and it was a small class. You may not be passionate about understanding copyright, just like some are not passionate about cataloging, but anyone who wants to work in a library who claims to not want to know about copyright will be ill-prepared for her career in libraries. It’s like wanting to work in a library because you don’t want to work with computers and you want to work with books instead. Understanding and teaching about copyright is part of what we do, and, on the whole, we do it poorly. Usually there’s only one or two people in a library who feel comfortable answering questions in regards to copyright. In academic libraries those who work with course reserves usually know, but does anyone else? Sometimes the extent of copyright education in libraries is the sign by the photocopier asking patrons to respect copyright. Guess what? Our patrons probably don’t even know what that really means. Should we not be empowered to teach them?

The Library Copyright Alliance has stated that “The case has no merit, and completely disregards the rights of libraries and their users under the law, especially fair use” (Band, 2011). This will be a long legal procedure, especially if the Google Book Search suit is any indication. But that probably doesn’t ease the feeling of vulnerability and helplessness that you may be feeling in response to this suit. What if my library gets sued? What if it doesn’t? What if, ultimately, HathiTrust prevails and large scale digitization projects become ubiquitous?

We need to continue our good work with passion and vigor. We can continue to use Fair Use to its full extent to provide access to materials to our library patrons. We can continue to make copies of copyrighted works for preservation purposes. We can continue to improve our patrons’ access to works online.

I am certain that the current copyright climate and the tension between authors, publishers, and libraries will change. I remain optimistic that the original intent of copyright, the public good, will prevail.

Many thanks to Jill Emery for her thoughtful questions. Thanks also to Lead Pipers Hilary Davis, Leigh Anne Vrabel, and Eric Frierson for edits, comments, and thought provoking questions. And thanks to Jake Shivery, who, despite not understanding librarian-ese, provided final copy edits.

Bosman, J. (2011, September 13). Lawsuit Seeks the Removal of a Digital Book Collection. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/13/business/media/authors-sue-to-remove-books-from-digital-archive.html

Herther, N. (2011). Authors take libraries to court in face off on copyright issues. Information Today Newsbreaks. Retrieved September 22, 2011, from http://newsbreaks.infotoday.com/NewsBreaks/Authors-Take-Libraries-to-Court-in-Face-Off-on-Copyright-Issues-77862.asp

Howard, J. (2011). In Authors’ Suit Against Libraries, an Attempt to Wrest Back Some Control Over Digitized Works. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Howard, Jennifer. (2011). HathiTrust Case Highlights Authors’ Fears About Fate of Their Work Online. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved October 7, 2011, from http://chronicle.com/article/Hot-Type-HathiTrust-Lawsuit/129241/?sid=wc&utm_source=wc&utm_medium=en

University of Michigan Libraries (2011). U-M Library statement on the Orphan Works Project | MLibrary. Retrieved September 30, 2011, from http://www.lib.umich.edu/news/u-m-library-statement-orphan-works-project

Introduction

If you work in a library, chances are you’ve seen or heard calls for you to become a library legislative advocate. You may have seen e-mails asking you to fill out a web form asking legislators to continue funding LSTA, or you may have recently seen e-mails about USA PATRIOT Act reforms. But why should librarians and library workers engage in legislative advocacy efforts? While I am by no means an expert on the topic of legislative advocacy, I have been moderately involved in advocacy work at the state and national level and it seems that I have some experience to impart to the library community. Many library colleagues have told me that they think advocacy work is difficult, or that they are intimidated by getting involved. I am also commonly asked whether advocacy efforts really make a difference.

The combination of the political climate after 9/11, librarians’ bold public actions to defend privacy and intellectual freedom rights, and some thoughtful mentoring from a colleague convinced me to become a librarian.

In 2002, my public library system, Multnomah County Library, filed a lawsuit against the United States of America on the basis that CIPA (Children’s Internet Protection Act) “…induces public libraries to violate their patrons’ First Amendment rights…and (2) it requires libraries to relinquish their First Amendment rights as a condition on the receipt of federal funds and is therefore impermissible under the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions” (p. 407).

A year later an FBI agent blamed “radical militant librarians” for his/her inability to use the USA PATRIOT Act to its full potential, which was big news in 2005 when this e-mail was released to the public.

Ross and Ciada (2005) describe library organizations’ reactions to the post 9/11 political climate: “To deal with the new informational and political landscapes, these organizations need both to inform their members and the community at large, as well as become more involved in the political and legislative processes that are responsible for enacting laws that could affect library services in the name of national security” (p. 108). They continue: “It is important, nevertheless, that the members of the library community in these difficult times have some sense of leadership and solidarity. In becoming active and involved, organizations such as the ALA are at the very least helping themselves to define and solidify their place and role in society” (p. 108).

Today’s libraries are founded on tenets of equity, freedom of information, and defending and advocating for the public’s rights and the public good. The library workers that uphold these everyday are my heroes.

Many kinds of public action articulate the value of libraries. Advocacy is defined as: “Public support for a course of action or way of doing things.” (Longman Dictionary). Due to its loose definition, library advocacy is therefore interpreted and practiced in a variety of ways. Numerous initiatives in the library world use the word advocacy to describe what they are doing and trying to accomplish. At our recently convened ALA Annual Conference, I saw a poster session by Emerging Leader groups that focused on teen services advocacy with local communities and Libraries Build Communities. Another example includes ALA President Molly Raphael’s advocacy initiative focused on empowering communities, and the list goes on. Legislative advocacy demonstrates our library/librarian values to lawmakers. This kind of advocacy usually includes communicating with elected officials via phone calls, in person visits, e-mails, and online action forms.

Here I aim to outline how to do it, why you should, and discuss some personal stories that I hope will help those who haven’t yet engaged in legislative advocacy. After you read this post I hope that you will include legislative advocacy in your professional routine.

How to do it? A Dummy’s Guide to Library Legislative Advocacy

Picture this: You receive an e-mail from one of your subscribed listservs asking you to TAKE ACTION NOW! to save the Statistical Compendia Branch of the US Census Bureau. You want to help, but you don’t know how, or you feel like you don’t know enough about the issue, or you don’t feel like you have time, or you might feel like TAKING ACTION NOW! might not really amount to anything. Well guess what? It’s a lot easier and than you think and your action can be meaningful. You don’t have to be an expert in an issue, and you don’t even have to know who your representatives and legislators are to make a difference

The first step is to read the e-mail or announcement and see what it says. If it’s an e-mail crafted by the ALA Washington Office it usually contains a concise summary of the issue, easy to read talking points that highlight library interest in the issue, and a link. You may not feel like this is not enough information to get involved and take that action. But it is enough. If you work in libraries you already know more about libraries than legislators. Similarly, legislators will know more about legislature than you will.

Next, you want to click on the link. It will take you to a web page with more information about the issue, and a space for your zip code. Read through the information given on this page, which usually provides another summary of the issue.

You’ll see on that page a place for you to enter your zip code. Click on Go! and the system will automatically forward your message to your representative. You’ll see in the screenshot below that your state representative’s name is filled in based on your zip code, as is a message about the Statistical Compendia Branch. You are free to modify the message, but you are also free to trust that the ALA Washington Office is representing library interests based on the information you read in your e-mail.

Next you’ll need to fill in your name and address information and click Send. That’s all there is to it. You have just advocated for libraries.

Of course there are some variations on this practice. Sometimes your action alert will ask you to call your legislators. Usually this is because action is needed in a very timely manner in Congress. E-mails take a while to filter through the system and make it to a congress person’s legislative aide. Calls are more effective on issues that are happening that day. Calls can be more intimidating if you’ve never done conducted an advocacy phone call before. But you are prepared. You have read your action alert and the web page should provide you instructions on what to say.

But what if I call and they ask a question I can’t answer? Simple. Say you don’t know, offer to find out, and ask what is the best way to follow-up with a response.

When you call you will talk to an intern at the reception desk of the legislator’s office. They will usually just make a tick mark on a sheet that tracks consitutents’ calls and legislative issues. You may ask to speak to the staff person in charge of education or telecommunications or whatever your issue concerns. Usually you will get their voice mail. You may also choose to call after 3 pm Pacific Time and you will usually just get the voicemail – a simple way to make that call but not have to worry about feeling intimidated.

There are also other ways to participate in legislative advocacy for libraries. You can participate in organized days where you visit your local legislators or participate in National Library Legislative Day (NLLD). Organized events are a great way to get your feet wet advocating for libraries. Typically these days have briefing sessions that help prepare you for conversations with your representatives. Moreover, you can visit with a legislator or a legislative aide with more than one person. For these situations it is good for representatives to see more than one face, and having your friends beside you might ease any anxiety that you might be feeling. It is also perfectly okay for you to tell a representative or an aide that you have never made an office visit before; they will most likely understand and help you with the process.

One thing that may help you feel more comfortable is that universally nobody hates libraries. During National Library Legislative Day 2011 briefings, this was stressed not only by ALA Washington Office staff, but also by panelists who have previously worked as congressional staff. To read a bit more about the information in the briefings and my office visits at this year’s NLLD, check out the blog post I wrote for the Oregon chapter of ACRL.

Does legislative advocacy work?

A question I’ve heard numerous times when I’ve been asked about legislative advocacy is: How do I know that my efforts work? Is it worth my time and effort? In my experience, yes.

As part of the Oregon delegation for NLLD, we met with our representatives, senators, and/or their staffers. During our meeting with Representative Earl Blumenauer’s (D-OR, District 3) Legislative Aide, we asked that Representative Blumenauer sign onto a dear colleague letter showing his support for LSTA funding. A few days later we received an e-mail from his legislative aide indicating that he had signed the letter. Signing a dear colleague letter is an official proclamation of a representative’s intention to support and vote a certain way when it comes to Congress. These letters are official documentation, and are part of the congressional record. In addition to the letters formalizing a person’s support of a piece of legislation, they are also used as peer pressure tools. (If your friends jumped off of a cliff, would you do it too?)

But what about those web forms? In my experience, each time I’ve used a web form from an Action Alert or contacted a legislator online, I have received an e-mail response a few weeks later. Take, for instance, the following letter I received from Ron Wyden, an Oregon Senator:

Another recent experience was at Oregon’s Library Legislative Day at the state capitol in Salem, OR. I met with my Senator, who indicated to me that he was “happy to be meeting with a constituent.” He mentioned that he rarely meets people in his office from his district and that he had spent the past few days speaking only with lobbyists. He was glad I was there. To me this was an eye-opening experience. Representatives in our state and federal legislatures want to hear from us, but how often do they really get a chance to hear from us? This one passing comment will stick with me for the rest of my life as I work as a library legislative advocate. I know that by showing my face, using my one voice (or my e-mail), I can impact and work to improve support for libraries and legislation at the state and federal level that effect libraries. One of the issues we were discussing with Oregon legislators this year, was to retain Oregon libraries as exempt from mandatory sharing of certain public records (such as patron records). This law went under review as SB 41 (.doc), and this same legislator was on the committee that was hearing the bill! Because he was on this committee, he asked if he could contact me if he needed more information in a timely manner to make a case for libraries. Fortunately, libraries had a lot of support around the issue, and he did not need to find out more information to make a strong argument to his colleagues. This situation made me feel like I did have expertise to share with my senator, and that he was willing to listen to my perspective and what was important to me as a professional and as an individual.

There are so many issue bombarding our legislative representatives, that it is really easy to miss issues that impact libraries. We can’t assume that even though our representatives might be library friendly, that they will know what is important to us. We have to tell them. More than once.

Advocacy Hacks

A large part of being a successful advocate is being informed. Be informed about what is hot on Capitol Hill, and what is happening in your state. You are already a library expert because you work in one. But how do you keep track all of knowing when to call? who to call? There’s an app for that. The Sunlight Foundation has developed iPhone and Android apps that help you track the activity in congress. These apps let you look up representatives and clearly list that representative’s committee appointments. These apps will also let you know what public hearings are scheduled and what committee will be hearing them. Moreover, the Sunlight Foundation has numerous projects and labs that may help you with legislative advocacy work.

There are also numerous other tools. The ALA Washington Office publishes the District Dispatch blog, which, with timely posts and e-mails, lets us know when the time is right. The Washington Office also recently announced a Twitter feed that will help broadcast issues as they are happening. You might also consider following web sites such ask GovTrack.us or the National Conference of State Legislatures to help you find out what is happening legislatively.

In addition to information about what is happening and when, you need something else. You need a good story backed with solid evidence. When it comes to advocacy your expert library knowledge–combined with good, relevant stories– is power. For example, in Oregon we are dealing with an abysmal number of school librarians. They are quite rare. But I’m an academic librarian. What is my story when I talk to legislators about how important it is to have school librarians in K-12 education? I talk about the transliteracy skills I see in students when I teach and when I help them at the reference desk. It is always apparent to me when new university students have had a librarian in their schooling and when they haven’t. According to the School Library Data compiled by the Oregon State Library, of the over 1300 public schools in Oregon, the state only has 304 FTE school librarians. This is inadequate and it is dooming students to struggle when they reach college. Everyday I encounter students who don’t have basic library and research skills. I can talk about these basic skills, such as using an index and creating citations, and the message really hits home with legislators.

If you’re running advocacy for a group, you can use Capwiz, a piece of software that makes embedding an advocacy widget easy. You can customize the widget with a message that you want your group to send to representatives, and it enables individuals to target their own state representatives. The Oregon Library Association’s Library Legislative and Development Committee uses this tool.

What’s in it for me?

First and foremost, if you advocate for libraries to be better funded, you will have better chances of keeping your job, your program, your building, your office, an increase in salary, etc. If you show the good work you can accomplish, you’ll get to do more of it. In fact, ALA Executive Director, Keith Michael Fiels, referred to the Capwiz advocacy tool as a major accomplishment for ALA. During an ALA Executive Board meeting last Friday (6/24/2011), he lauded Capwiz for being the tool that has saved libraries so much money (in that Congress hears us and keeps us funded) that we have saved 15,000 jobs. That is, library advocates using the Capwiz tool via Action Alerts, have saved 15,000 jobs. How? By using advocacy techniques the library community was able to continue funding libraries through LSTA.

Congress and the public fund services that they feel are valuable. If you can work to articulate the value of libraries in a meaningful way to Congress, your city or county government officials, and your service community, you will have more support. I should also note that advocacy is an iterative process. A continual advocacy dialog is needed in order to fertilize and grow support for libraries in your community.

Advocacy is the ultimate big picture work

These days we get so inundated with the day-to-day practicalities of our jobs, that we are in danger of losing the big picture. Everyday librarians and library workers create and implement programs, write book reviews, teach library instruction sessions, provide reference services and access points, etc. Engaging in advocacy is a way to step back from these practicalities and to think about the larger role that libraries play in our communities and our society.

For me it is very fulfilling to know that I’m part of the bigger picture, that I’m part of the system that continues to provide equity in society, that my work contributes to the public good, and that my job and my position as a librarian is still relevant to why I entered the profession.

A Plug for Representative Government

A representative government does not and will not work without public input. As my experience at the state legislature in Oregon shows, not enough people participate. It is BIG LOUD AND VISIBLE PUBLIC ACTION that gets things done. It is what librarians like fellow Lead Piper Brett is trying to achieve by boycotting Harper Collins. It is what happened when there was a bus strike in the South during Rosa Parks’ and Marin Luther King Junior’s time. Without collective public action, without the many tens of thousands of voices our chances of being heard are small. ALA alone has over 60,000 members, and that is not every librarian or library worker out there. What could over 60,000 people accomplish for libraries if everyone participated? That is why you should do it. If you don’t, it’s like saying you don’t believe in representative democracy.

So really, what can you do?

As I’ve discussed in this post, legislative advocacy for libraries by library workers is important, and doesn’t happen enough. However, there are numerous things that you can do to get involved in legislative advocacy for libraries.

Start reading advocacy messages you receive via e-mail, or Facebook, or Twitter and contact your legislators. If you’re a member of state or regional organization that performs advocacy work, get involved with your local committee. See if your organization can make use of Capwiz by partnering with ALA. Download an app to your smart phone, or visit a web site that tracks legislative issues to educate yourself about what’s happening that might affect libraries. And finally, encourage all of your colleagues to join us in advocating in libraries. The more advocates we have, the more successful our libraries and profession becomes.

A big thank you to Kim Leeder who sat with me to brainstorm this post during a bout of writer’s block at ALA Annual, to Hilary Davis and Leigh Anne Vrabel for contributing editorial remarks, and to Janet Webster, Oregon’s number one library advocate, for feedback on this post.

Several of my In the Library with the Lead Pipe posts have centered around work/life balance, or being happy and healthy in a job. When I wrote about losing my mojo I also mentioned that a big thing for me was my transition from working full-time to half-time.

After that post I enjoyed a summer of half-time work in which I was able to pay rent, eat, go on day trips to the Oregon Coast and Columbia River Gorge for hikes, and generally re-infuse myself with energy. I needed the break. It was great, but I knew it wouldn’t last. I wasn’t saving any money and my position was temporary, with a one-year contract. I knew I would eventually need to pick up another part-time job to get my student loans paid more quickly, save money in case my temporary part-time job was not refunded in the next fiscal year, and, of course, to indulge occasionally at an out-of-my-price-range restaurant. I also knew that I wanted to accept the right part-time job. And I eventually did. In late September I accepted a part-time hourly wage contract position to fill in as a reference and instruction librarian at a local state university.

Of the six jobs I’ve held over the past three and a half years since I’ve had my MLS, only one of my positions was permanent (and it had its issues, which is why I left) and only three have been full-time. Currently I’m working two part-time temporary jobs. One is as a Scholarly Communication Librarian at a medical school and the other as a Reference and Instruction Librarian at a large, urban state university. Don’t get me wrong; I am lucky. Despite its part-time temporary nature one of my jobs offers me health insurance, professional development funding, faculty status, and the ability to work on engaging projects. But my current experience is taking me back to the right-out-of-library-school piecemealing together of part-time work to pay the rent. It’s an experience all too common these days and it can be difficult to professionally balance more than one job, let alone balance life and work.

With this post I’d like to examine a bit more in depth some of the professional issues facing many librarians today who are working not one, but maybe 2 or 3 or 4 part-time library jobs. The Library Journal Placement and Salaries Survey 2010 indicates that while full-time placement is up, so are part-time, temporary and non-professional placements of LIS grads. While some people work part-time jobs as a choice, others work part-time jobs because these are the only employment opportunities afforded them. The trend to work numerous part-time temporary jobs is growing, and there seems to be no end in sight. Balancing work and life is one challenge in and of itself, but what of the challenge of balancing numerous positions and a life?

Being curious I did a pretty extensive search of the professional literature to find discussions surrounding part-time work. I found articles that fell into one of several categories:

Articles that discuss part-time employment and job sharing as good ways to maintain work/life balance. These articles (to be referenced later) focus on those individuals who choose to work part-time.

Criticisms of employers and institutions regarding part-time work in the form of letters to the editor.

The employer’s perspective of how cost-efficient part-time work can be at the administrative level.

Articles discussing the advantages and the disadvantages of part-time work.

One of the things that stuck me about my literature searching is that few of these articles are recent. In fact, several of the longer substantive articles date from the 1980s. The nature of libraries has changed quite a bit in the past 30 years, and we have yet to get a handle on what it means to have a growing part-time temporary work force. For perspective, many newer librarians, such as myself, were still in elementary school at time these articles were written. There is much debate about the use of adjunct or part-time instructors in higher education in general. Longmate & Cosco (2002) cite the growing trend for community colleges to have an instructor workforce comprised of 60% part-time instructors; compared to 20% in 1970. Given discussions in academe regarding part-time work and the growing numbers of part-time temporary library workers, it is again time to have national dialog about part-time temporary librarianship.

The Benefits

The benefits of having a part-time job or a job share situation are, indeed, rich and plentiful. Lori Wamsley, (2008) like many of her predecessors from the 1980s and 1990s, points to the advantages of flexibility, networking, gaining experience, and staying in a local area. Others point to the advantages for people who have children and families (Library Personnel News, 1993; Notowitz, 1983; Dinerman, 1988; Laynor, 1987). Indeed, when I worked part-time I enjoyed my hobbies more and was able to spend more time with loved ones.

Working two positions enables me to have diverse work experiences. I have different job descriptions that concentrate in differing library work. In one position I am deeply engaged in scholarly communication, providing education and support to a community about the NIH Public Access Policy, and supporting publishing issues such as author rights. In the other position I serve as a subject librarian, providing reference services to a diverse audience of students, graduate students, and faculty. About 40% of my time in this position is at a busy reference desk–a kind of work I find quite satisfying. I also deeply enjoy the classroom teaching, collection development, and other aspects of this position. This diversity of day-to-day duties brings me great satisfaction.

Additionally, working in more than one library enables me to develop professional relationships with an abundance of coworkers. Where one library does not employ subject specialists, the other has many with specialized research and publications interests. Where one library employs those who are expert searchers and work in rigorous research support, the other excels in instruction development for undergraduate students. Working at two different institutions affords me the opportunity to engage with a wealth of individuals who have a diversity of expertise. From my coworkers at both institutions I have amassed a great deal of knowledge and experience.

To this end I am able to bring what I have learned from one institution and use it at the other. For example, during a reference shift at the large university library I received a phone call from a faculty member concerned about copyright and fair use for her coming term’s course-pack. Using my knowledge of copyright and publishing as a Scholarly Communication librarian, I was able to assist her by explaining fair use, even though at the time I was serving as a Reference and Instruction Librarian. Similarly, I am able to use my knowledge of resources offered by both libraries to refer students and faculty from each school to the other when the respective institution’s resources aren’t what a patron needs.

For some individuals not being tied down to one job is a benefit. Temporary part-time contracts mean that you can work when you need to work. Conversely, if you want a day off you can simply request it. Contract work allows for the flexibility of choosing which contracts to take. If you are working a part-time temporary position and you are offered a contract extension or a contract renewal, you don’t have to take it. For some, this is quite a benefit to be able to choose when and how much one works.

Finally, I am able to live in the city I love. When I finished library school I knew that I didn’t want to live anywhere other than my home city so I made the choice to move home without a job. I knew in my heart that I would be happier in my chosen surroundings than by choosing a job over a city. Luckily I have been able to remain employed over the past three and a half years, which is a feat in and of itself.

The Disadvantages

Part-time temporary work has numerous disadvantages that must be considered. For many people working more than one part-time temporary position is the only employment choice afforded them. It can feel like being between a rock and a hard place, especially if you want to work full-time in the library profession but don’t have the opportunity to do so. What some of the family-friendly articles I read fail to mention is that the income of part-time positions is not enough to support a family. Some people might choose to work full-time in another profession for health benefits and to support their families, while others decide to take numerous part-time temporary library jobs (to end up working full-time or more than full-time) so that they might use their coveted MLS in the library field. Sometimes individuals accept positions that do not require an MLS, often remaining in paraprofessional positions.

For many, accepting part-time temporary work is the decision to be a librarian. I fear that many individuals feel they don’t have a choice but to accept and be grateful for any library-related job opportunity that comes their way. As a result, individuals work several part-time temporary positions, struggling to balance numerous jobs and life. Ultimately, individuals will need to make a choice that best suits their life needs.

Working less than full-time is simply not economically viable for most people these days. Librarians, in particular, who frequently have student loan debt from undergraduate and graduate careers, feel the pressure to repay their loans. I personally don’t know anyone who went into librarianship for the money, so we can assume that the full-time pay, much less the part-time pay, is not enough. The fact that I was able to work half-time for three months was a definite luxury, but after that time I needed to find additional work.

As discussed by almost all of the articles I read, part-time temporary jobs do not pay health, retirement, vacation or sick time benefits. The hourly wages for these positions fall below those of an institution’s full-time counterparts, and employees have no guarantee that they will continue to have a position from contract to contract. “Nearly 64 percent of part-time librarians are paid at the low end of the wage scale” argues Gover (1994) citing Hogue & Sisson (1993). For many the inequity in pay is a big frustration.

Another disadvantage that has been discussed in the literature is exclusion from the work environment (Wamsley, 2008; Maxwell, 1997; Gover, 1994; Pontau & Rothschild, 1986; Anderson, 1995; Braudy & Tuckerman, 1986). As a part-time temporary worker one might not be well trained to know library policies. Moreover, individuals may feel disconnected from coworkers by not being invited to participate in meetings, institutional and department decision-making (Anderson, 1995) and by being the individuals who work the undesirable shifts (Braudy & Tuckerman, 1986). Barbara Mettler (1988) points out that sometimes being a substitute leads to “Some staff view subs as ‘fair game’ and will do ‘creative’ things with their schedules.” (p. 9) She discusses a situation where a coworker left the substitute alone while the coworker took extended lunch breaks. While I’d like to think this is not a normal practice, it shows how inequity in the work place can grow between part-time temporary staff and regular employees.

One of the disadvantages that I have not seen discussed in any articles is commuting. While I personally have the luck of working jobs situated only a mile and a half apart, many of my librarian colleagues work far away from their homes. I would find it much more difficult to hold two part-time professional positions if such proximity between institutions did not exist. My colleagues’ several jobs are far from one another and can result in the stress of rushing from one job to the next. Additionally the time and money individuals spend commuting in cars, paying for gas, parking, and daycare just so they can work numerous jobs adds up to be quite an expense. As an example, when I began looking for part-time work, I turned down a part-time temporary substitute librarian position 21 miles from my home, and 20 miles from my half-time job. I was sad to do this because the library environment seemed energetic, but I knew that I could not balance such a long commute between two positions, home, and an uncertain work schedule. For some, part of this equation is also how long they are asked to work. Will they be driving a long ways to fill in for only a 2 hour shift?

This leads us to yet another disadvantage: scheduling. Scheduling between multiple part-time jobs can be onerous and difficult. Just keeping track of what days and what shifts you work can be a chore; especially if your shifts vary week to week. In my case I have caught myself, in the middle of an instruction session, referring to the wrong library!

Another scheduling dilemma is that many substitute librarians might not feel that they are able to say no when they are asked to fill in for a shift. If they say no once, they might not be called in the future to cover for a shift. “But it is a fine balance between being available and unavailable for work; you don’t want to be too unavailable to work, because then you likely won’t get any scheduled hours,” (p. 7, Wamsley, 2008). Sometimes this can result in forgoing the luxury of a weekend so that you can keep working in the future, pay the rent, etc.

Many part-timers also struggle with a work/life balance on top of the work/work balance. Part-time librarians typically work more undesirable hours than their full-time permanent counterparts. Evening and weekend shifts are typically covered by part-time employees (Braudy & Tuckerman, 1986; Wamsley, 2008). Substitutes or on-call workers have unpredictable hours. You might receive a call only one hour before a shift to see if you can cover for someone who is out sick. For some librarians this can be a difficulty. Friends and family may have regular 8-5 jobs, so connecting with loved ones can be a hardship.

One of the most troubling disadvantages is that part-time workers often have little to no support to engage in professional development and service. Having been a professional for over three years I am a member of various committees locally and nationally. With a full-time position I was supported to participate in librarianship in this manner and I continue to do so. Again, I am lucky that one of my positions supports my professional service and scholarship in the form of travel to conferences, committee participation, and writing. However, when I am gone from my hourly position for committee work or am attending a conference, I receive no pay for that time. This has resulted in me facing the difficult choice to sacrifice either money, in the form of pay, or sacrifice my professional development in missing committee meetings and conferences. The other choice I face is whether to make up missed work hours when I do participate in a conference. Will I work Saturday and Sunday for the paycheck?

Most individuals who work part-time temporary positions are not supported in their endeavors to participate in professional development opportunities. By this I mean they are not supported financially to attend conferences, nor are they given the release time to work on committee obligations or attend conferences and workshops. And yet, in the future when they apply for full-time permanent jobs employers might favor a librarian who has engaged in service and professional development over one who has not.

Chan and Auster (2003) point to the need to address professional development and training for part-time library workers, stating that “part-time status reduces opportunities for updating; because libraries have come to rely on part-time librarians, the updating needs of these part-time employees should be addressed” (p. 282-283). Part-timers typically must attend conferences on their own time and on their own dime. For many part-timers the decision becomes “learn or get paid” and that is not an easy decision to make. Some might choose to make up lost pay by working weekends or extending work hours, so as not to lose too much pay for attending a conference or workshop.

Thanks to Digitalnative at Flickr for use of this image.

Balancing more than one job

Part of my decision to work two jobs was financial; I needed to be able to save money and pay off my student loans. The other issue at hand is that the job market in my city is tight, and there are few full-time permanent jobs to be had in any field, let alone in libraries. I am not alone in this employment situation. As I mentioned in the introduction, the part-time nature of academic work is growing. With this growing population of part-timers, we are all facing the conundrum of how to find good balance between two jobs.

One of the reasons I wanted to write this post was to discuss the challenges I’ve faced, but also look at the positive aspects and growth that I experience working two fulfilling library positions. I have enough money coming in between both positions, and my ability to retain the perks of a regular employee at one institution has assisted me professionally. Both positions are part-time temporary and I enjoy both of them greatly. However, I find that on any given day one job will get my better self and the other will get the worse. Just like work/life balance, work/work balance demands a person to choose one thing over another. (Remember the cycle of rotating neglect I talked about in How do You Say No?) To this end I don’t feel that on any day either job gets my best. Ideally, I would be able to have one job and concentrate my energies on providing the best service to patrons and making the best decisions for my library. Being in more than one place can spread energies thin, and can result in confusion, disconnectedness, and exhaustion.

I’ve found some techniques that are helpful for balancing two professional positions. One, I try to be present within my communities. When I walk in the door of the medical school library I consciously put on my Scholarly Communication and Medical Librarian hat. Likewise, when I enter the door at the state university library, take off my Medical Librarian hat and I put on my Reference and Instruction hat. I try to NOT check my other work’s e-mail when I’m at either institution, but sometimes I fail at this.

Changing hats is just one way that I try to be fully engaged at either institution when I arrive. It helps me to keep up by regarding daily announcements and news from either institution, so that I feel like I’m in the loop with each place. I read staff blogs, weekly e-mail announcements, meeting minutes and other work related materials. These make me feel more connected to what is happening at each work place. It alleviates some of the disconnection that can result from only being around part of the time.

Sometimes changing hats and perspectives in the middle of the day can be tough. I’ll find myself going through selection slips at one institution and think, “I should buy this for my other library!” And sometimes I do forward myself book titles to purchase, e-mail tidbits on resources, etc that will benefit my other job at the other library. Frequently I’m still thinking about presentations I gave at my other place of work, or an instruction session I gave the previous evening.

The different nature of my part-time temporary positions has created some inequities in how I view and treat each workplace. Since the medical school does support my service activities and some conference travel, I try to pack in all of my professional development and committee work while I’m on their dollar. Since I also have a job to do, a lot of these commitments will bleed into my weekends, which I’ve long valued as sacred, non-working times. Conversely, my other employer is unable to support my committee service. As with my professional commitments, I use the benefits from my salaried, faculty position to visit the doctor, or make necessary car mechanic appointments. As a result I sometimes feel frustrated by trying to be a professional and do a professional job without the institutional support that would make it easier and my job more fulfilling.

Likewise my differing employee classification between the two institutions can be a strain. I am faculty at one institution and not at the other. As a faculty member I participate actively within the library and work on library-wide projects rather than my singular job duties. As an hourly wage employee, I do not participate in long-term projects, nor do I participate at the same level as my full-time permanent counterparts. My situation is quite unique in this regard. The divergent nature of my employee status at the institutions stems from my 3-year work history at the medical school and my newness at the state university. Because of my experience as a faculty member at the medical school figuring out how to be a professional in an hourly-wage position is complicated. I would like to be involved at the larger level for library decision-making, but I don’t have the institutional knowledge, nor do I feel comfortable within the organization’s culture to participate as fully as I would like.

When I took on a second temporary part-time position my partner warned me that I was going to be exhausted and that it was going to be arduous. He was right. Yet I deeply enjoy both of my positions and while I feel certain frustrations, I am comforted in knowing that I’m gaining rich experiences and that this situation will not last forever.

The employer’s perspective

Certainly the use of part-time temporary employees stems from economic need. There is no doubt that library budgets are suffering and as a result personal budgets are, too. Chervinko (1986) points out that:

“Using temporary workers is an excellent means of solving some staffing problems in the library. The business world has long recognized the value of these workers and is using them in greater numbers for specialized jobs. Libraries can use them efficiently and economically for staffing major in-house projects. To achieve the maximum benefits from their service, it is necessary that they be carefully selected and thoroughly trained and motivated to produce high quality work. Moreover, they must be treated as equal members of the library staff.” (p. 220)

One of the aspects that I value from this business and administrative perspective is the need to treat part-time employees as equal members of the library staff. From the numerous articles I’ve read and from personal experience, part-time employees do not feel they are treated as equal to their full-time permanent counterparts. Again, in this regard I have been very lucky to be in positions that respect my experience and ideas.

Bette Anderson also addresses this issue in her 1995 article Trends in the Workplace: Part-time librarians. “My personal assessment is that the practice of relying on part-timers may save money for employers, but without enlightened management it can result in hidden costs in terms of employee morale and quality of public service” (p. 264). She continues, pointing out that “As outsiders, they are not invited to become part of the decision-making process” (p. 265).

These two quotes point to the need for management and administration to be sensitive to implementing part-time temporary work. Part-time temporary jobs are cheap for libraries, but at what cost? Is turnover for part-time temporary work high? What are the training costs? Before implementing part-time temporary positions library administrations should put plans in place that address the needs for part-time workers to be treated professionally. For example, where will these employees be able to hang their coats? What are best practices for hiring part-time temporary workers? Professional treatment might include providing some contract hours to engage in professional development activities, or allow paid sick leave. Not all of these suggestions will be feasible for every institution, but they are points for managers and administrators to consider.

What can employees do?

As a new librarian, an underemployed librarian, or someone who only wants to work part-time, what can you do when it comes to the tension of piecemealing together part-time jobs? I would encourage you to ask about professional development possibilities before signing any contracts. Engage in a dialogue with your potential employer and potential supervisor to see if there can be an agreement that will make working several part-time jobs more enjoyable and avoid some of the common disadvantages of working part-time temporary positions. Try to ask for a few hours of your contract work to serve on a committee, or ask if you may attend a conference and receive some financial support to attend.

It is pivotal that we, as professionals, have a clear, constructive dialogue about both the benefits and the disadvantages of part-time temporary work. Harsh letters to the editor regarding poor treatment by an employer will not help part-time temporary employees anywhere. Instead, consider entering into dialogue with your supervisor about how to balance your time. Part-time temporary employees should remain sensitive to the budgetary and political obstructions facing institutions and library administrators. Likewise, institutions and administrators should seriously evaluate how to make and use part-time employees in a responsible and respectful manner. It would be interesting if part-time employees might draft a set of best practices or points for consideration for their libraries. In the future, the library’s administrators might use these points when hiring more part-time and/or part-time temporary employees.

Conclusion

If part-time work with benefits were the norm in libraries, then libraries, patrons, and employees would benefit. For many libraries and institutions this kind of solution is not feasible with their tiny, and continually shrinking budgets. Since part-time temporary workers are becoming the new norm in libraries, I think it’s time for us to engage in healthy discussion about these issues. This post is my call to have individuals, institutions, and organizations once again examine the issues of part-time temporary labor. Let’s talk about creative solutions and ideas that will benefit institutions AND individuals.

As Gover pointed out in 1994, it’s time for further study. Where is the study? Who’s going to do it? (It’s probably not going to be the part-timers, because they have enough on their plates.) But it is time for us to have a greater national dialogue and come up with some techniques to improve working environments for librarians in the trenches. You can contribute by adding your voice. Share your story, your concerns, your triumphs. What have you experienced as advantages to part time work? What about disadvantages?

I’d like to hear from the administrative perspective answers to the following: Have you supervised part-time employees? What challenges did you face? What were your successes? What went in to the decisions to create the positions? What would you look for from a part-time temporary employee in the future?

From the non-administrative side I’d like to hear answers to: What is your experience with part-time temporary work/workers? What would best practices look like to you? Do you have any other benefits or disadvantages to mention? What might lead you to a decision to work part-time temporary jobs?

Many thanks to fellow part-timers Chau Hoang-Fossen and Kim Read for their comments and feedback. Additional thanks to Lead Pipe bloggers, Hilary Davis, Ellie Collier, and Kim Leeder for thoughtful comments; and to Tom Raffensperger and Michael Bowman for conversations, feedback, and their perspectives regarding this topic.

A Little Background

Here at In the Library with the Lead Pipe we’ve had several potential guest authors ask us if we would publish their work under pseudonyms or anonymously. Usually the requests we receive to post anonymously are those that are steeped in controversial situations that might have ramifications for the author in her or his work place or career. So far we have turned down all of these requests.

The problem with anonymous and pseudonymous publishing (let’s combine these terms and call them undisclosed publications) is that with this form it is easy for pieces to be unproductive and inappropriate. We at Lead Pipe maintain this blog as a place to think critically about our professional lives and to provide proactive creative solutions to problems and issues in our profession. This goal is posted on our about page: ”Our goal is to explore new ideas and start conversations; to document our concerns and argue for solutions.” We thought that the tone of the proposed undisclosed pieces don’t fit with this goal, seeming like complaint pieces with little background supporting evidence, and with little or no creative and critical solutions posed.

Following along these lines we employ a comment policy on the blog, but take no stance as to the identity of the commenter. “We appreciate and invite your comments and discussion about posts on In the Library with the Lead Pipe. Constructive criticism is one of our primary goals, and we applaud it in our readers. Comments that do not maintain a civil tone or that disregard the post’s topic will be deleted. We do not edit comments except by request of the poster.”

Since the idea of undisclosed publication is not new and seems to come to us with some regularity, we thought it deserved a bit of thought, some writing, and frankly a bit more navel gazing or rumination– despite the fact that this is already well-covered (and controversial) territory in our profession. Please note that this piece is written from my viewpoint even though it was sparked by conversations at Lead Pipe. It does not reflect the ideas of my Lead Pipe colleagues.

I deviate from my Lead Pipe colleagues in that I feel there is no reason for critical thinking and creative solutions to be masked. Anonymity should be a last resort, and there’s very little room for last resorts in published professional discourse.

When I started thinking about this post I recalled my readings for Susan Herring’sGender and Computerization class that I took in graduate school. The advent of Internet technology enabled people to reinvent themselves. It enabled women to adopt male personas and vice versa. Think about Second Life and the avatars that we are able to create for ourselves in virtual worlds. In a virtual world one can be most anything.

But this kind of liberation started before the graphical interface of the Internet appeared in the 1990s. Think about the Telnet era, even then people were presenting themselves via different personas online compared to real life. One of the most liberating things that the Internet offers for many people is the ability to assume a different physicality, identity, and personality. Amy Bruckman discussed this in her 1993 paper, Gender Swapping on the Internet (pdf).

Since the Telnet era undisclosed publication and Internet use has boomed. Blogs and blog comments can be published anonymously; characters in online games provide alternate personalities to the ones we bring to our day jobs. In short, technology allows us to do and say things that we never would do in person. As liberating as this is, it is much easier for us to not be accountable for our actions. It allows us to break social contracts and norms in the manner of rude comments and offering arguments unsupported by any evidence or logical reasoning.

An Argument Against Undisclosed Discourse

Hiding our identities allows us to break accepted social practice and there is nothing inherently unethical or wrong with creating a character in Second Life or engaging in gender swapping or other identity experiments online. However, the realm of library professional discourse, i.e. writing critical essays or peer reviewed articles that contribute to the discourse of our profession, is not where this kind of experimentation or use of nondisclosure should occur. Undisclosed publishing can be used to insult, act violently, and lash out in a way that defies our understanding of social contract and accepted norms of professional behavior. It can easily lead down the path of snarky and negative venting that are wholly unproductive.

What happens if you want to retroactively take credit for your previously undisclosed ideas? Walt Crawford tackled this issue in a 2007 piece in eContent.

“I have seen more than one case, though, where a pseudonym has gone bad. I’ve seen the retroactive addition of a real-world signature to every post in a blog, including those that might never have been written were they signed originally. Identity revelation can happen because a blogger has a book or article published and is proud of it, referring to it in a manner that makes the blogger’s name obvious. It can happen because the blogger triangulates his identity too narrowly over time.”

Any previously published undisclosed writings may find an author backpedaling when her identity is revealed.

Librarianship has the perfect example of an unproductive undisclosed blogger: The Annoyed Librarian. This undisclosed blogger is currently hosted by Library Journal, a publication that provides news, reviews, and information related to librarianship. The Annoyed Librarian can be snarky and she can be mean. (Try her post about Anarchist Librarians and Library Porn, wherein she calls anarchists simpletons and idiotic.) Personally I think there is a difference between outright calling someone an idiot and having a well thought out argument that leads your readers to their own conclusions. While she does have some good critical ideas they tend to be masked by a breaking of accepted professional social contract.

When an undisclosed writer attacks and contributes unproductively to professional discourse she suffers no consequences. On the flip side, when this same undisclosed author makes compelling and productive arguments the gravity of those arguments are undermined by the author’s previous work. Those who choose to publish under a pseudonym, particularly a pseudonym that becomes known for bullying and counter-productive arguments, are not giving their valid, well considered, well argued, and productive ideas a chance.

Buschman et al, published an editorial in Progressive Librarian on this topic, “The inauthenticity of online interactions is a continuum, stretching from routine use of “handles” instead of names, to elaborate cultivation of false online persona, to abusive anonymity in malicious exchanges.” (p. 6) While Buschman and his colleagues focus their editorial on attacks made by political right-wing library bloggers against those with opposing views, Buschman and his co-authors’ argument is sound. They discuss the long and hard won intellectual freedom that academicians practice and for which librarians and academics continue to fight. “Intellectual freedom is a variant also meant to protect open, public exchange in the interests of an open society and democracy.” (p.4) Hiding one’s identity is not an action that points to open and public exchange.

Will Manley has also taken up the issue of undisclosed discourse in American Libraries. He makes some very interesting points in his editorial column from January 2010. “In a bygone era of accountability, newspapers would not publish a letter without identifying the writer. But today readers are permitted to post anonymous responses to each and every article.” (p. 112 American Libraries, and online.) While Manley points toward the anonymous comments on news web site blogs and political propaganda on the Internet, his point is well taken—the accountability and reliability of a source used to matter. In libraries and for librarians, it still should.

Contrary to Manley’s viewpoint there have been recent articles and blog posts discussing nondisclosure from the journalist’s point of view.Matt Zoller Seitz wrote a nice piece over on Salon.com that, wittily defends anonymous speech online and points to some of the ugliness it can create. “The protective force field of anonymity — or pseudonymity — brings out the worst in some people.”

Seitz satirically writes that he is pro-anonymity for its sheer ugliness: “And yet anonymous comments — all of them, even the written equivalent of high-speed drive-by shootings — serve a useful function. They show us what the species is really like: the full spectrum of human behavior, not just the part that we find reassuring and enlightening.” Do any of us want the comparative equivalent of “high-speed drive-by shootings” in professional library discourse? We are librarians and library workers, not drive-by shooters.

I personally don’t think that American librarianship is ever going to be so controversial that we need to hide our professional identities from one another. (I am aware that this is not the case in all countries, and even professional opinions may have such political ramifications where one’s life might be in danger.) In this point I agree with Joseph S. Fulda, who in The Journal of Information Ethics argues that:

I am in grave doubt as to whether the the rules announced in the third and fourth points [using a pseudonym to argue something verifiable and using impeccable reasoning] can be merged…whether it would be ethical to publish—under the veil of pseudonymity—such an argument…More bluntly, I can see no constructive purpose for such publication, let alone under the veil of pseudonymity…” (p. 82)

Fulda essentially argues that if your argument is sound why would you need to mask yourself from your intended audience? It seems less productive than making a productive argument under the auspices of oneself. When one presents a productive, insightful, and well-reasoned argument it is easier to be given credit and to laud the merits of the author.

Undisclosed publications lack credibility and are prone to counter-productivity. As a teacher and librarian I always encourage my students to consider their source. What authority does that source have to make that argument and those claims? Without knowledge of an author’s expertise, experience, and general knowledge of the subject, how are we to even consider this kind of discourse as valid?

A Brief Tangent on Peer Review

A nuance of professional discourse lies within the traditional model of peer review. Here we have an example of an accepted practice that relies on undisclosed identities. Traditionally peer review occurs in a blind environment where reviewers do not know the identity of the author and the author does not know the identity of the reviewer. From the lens of traditional peer review it seems that a piece of writing or discourse, no matter the source or author, is judged solely on the value and productivity of its content. If we judge works based on the traditional peer review process it should follow that authorship of these articles is moot and that undisclosed publishing would be accepted practice. But it’s not. (The anonymous peer review argument is possibly how the Journal of Access Services got away with publishing an entire issue dedicated to the Annoyed Librarian’s writings.)

We do not use the traditional peer review model for In the Library with the Lead Pipe. We use a form of open peer review wherein the identity of the author and the identity of the reviewers are known to both parties. This open peer review process means that authors are able to engage in conversations with her reviewers beyond one reading or review of a piece. She might bounce ideas off of a reviewer in the revision process. Moreover, it allows an author publishing at Lead Pipe to find reviewers who have close knowledge of the subject matter at hand.

For example when I wrote about the Google Book Search Settlement, I sought to have a reviewer with intricate legal and library knowledge. To this end one of the reviewers for that piece held an MLS and a JD. To me getting feedback from a reviewer that had intricate legal knowledge was paramount. In blind peer review I would not have had this option. I would not have known if my reviewers had any prior knowledge to the issues relating to the Google Book Search settlement, copyright, or law. For me using the open peer review process has improved my writing tenfold. The conversations I’m able to carry with my reviewers, and the substantive feedback I’ve received have far surpassed my albeit limited experience with the traditional peer review process.

The Last Resorts

We (arguably) do not live in a country where we can be arrested for well-reasoned arguments and where bloggers aren’t regularly sent to prison. However, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t consequences for what we say and do publicly, be it in regard to politics or in the workplace. This is where the “last resort” idea comes into play. I think there IS a place for last resort and only last resort author nondisclosure in professional discourse. That place is very small and should be used only when situations are dire. Moreover, political discourse is another arena in which I feel strongly that there is a vast amount of room for undisclosed writing and discourse.

In an ideal world, substantive comments and civil discussion online would not lead to negative consequences in the workplace or professionally. However there are many professionals who do not feel they cannot speak their mind freely. Within their own organizations they might fear recourse if they discuss politics or professional ideas.

Miriam Cook of The Guardian writes in In Defence of Anonymity Online that “Anonymity online sets us free. The facility to create our own content and comment on websites would be far less valuable to us were it restricted to posting under “real” names.”Her argument is based in the political. When people use their real names online to discuss politics, they might suffer repercussions in their place of employ, hence the need for the veil of pseudonymity and anonymity when commenting on news blogs. Consider, for instance, what recently happened to Juan Williams. He was fired from NPR after making comments regarding Muslim people.While I do not agree with the remarks Mr. Williams made, I can see where if he felt the need to express them, his employment would have been protected. Moreover, sometimes remarks can be taken out of context, as has been argued in the case of with Mr. Williams. Ramifications can result in either case.

Thanks to Photo Phiend on Flickr for use of this image

Undisclosed publication in the United States goes back all the way to the Federalist Papers, which were all published with the same moniker–Publius. The authorship of these 85 publications is still disputed today. For perhaps the most theoretical argument about political anonymity, I’d like to to turn to anarchist and revolutionary political discourse.

Much but not all of anarchist and revolutionary writing occurs anonymously. The theory follows that by focusing on political actions or events and not on the author, the event takes on more meaning. Rather, the event is not subsumed by the individual identity of the person with the thought or taking the action, or by historical record.

“The most successful poisoning of class oppressors, for example, are those never known as such. Just like the perfect crime, the subversive act seeks to escape all detection, cover its tracks and avoid appearance in the archives; for the perpetrators to strike (anonymously) again. Only those who wish to be martyrs, self-publicists or media personalities would wish to wait around to offer their names and have their picture taken.” Without a Trace. By Anonymous

But not all anarchists have written anonymously, as Alex Gorrion points out. The ability for political discourse and thought to be penned anonymously still remains of huge import to the anarchist (non)community and other revolutionary groups.

Like I mentioned earlier, many people work in environments where it is hard to engage in discourse, even productive and well reasoned discourse, with our fear of recourse. This is probably the case for all of the submissions that have been sent to In the Library with the Lead Pipe requesting undisclosed publication. For me this kind of environment bleeds into professional discourse practices in our individual workplaces; and sometimes that can mean using anonymity as a tool.

“Be Willing to Accept Anonymity. Anonymity can encourage people to share observations or ask questions that might otherwise never emerge. Be willing to look past nonconstructive critical statements gathered from staff or the public via surveys, comments, or feedback forms. There may be substance behind the snark to be addressed and used.

What about bad or “not so useful” statements or suggestions made by staff? Name-calling, for instance, may not merit an open reply, but it’s best to address even slightly feasible ideas, if only to acknowledge the input and encourage more feedback. Explain why a particular idea might not work at this time, and direct focus to other areas. Or involve staffers in exploring the costs and benefits of particular ideas that might demonstrate their feasibility to all.”

Because of internal politics making anonymous suggestions regarding workflow and organizational changes can be the most productive tactic. Without the political weight of an identity attached those ideas may be more seriously considered when faced only as an idea, not as the person who is the mouthpiece for the idea. Take for example the suggestions of combining the circulation and reference desks into one service desk. An idea such as this might have far-reaching implications for library workflow and management; it can be very controversial. What if it were the reference manager making this suggestion? Or what if it were an hourly student worker? Who we are in the workplace can help and/or hinder change. If we are to think seriously about ideas then sometimes it is best if ideas are just ideas and not attached to identities.

So Where’s the Line?

I’d like to think that most writing and discourse in librarianship is reliable, credible, and contributes to professional discourse. It is via writing and conversation that we are able to propose new ideas, troubleshoot, engage with our professional peers, and create new and exciting work. In an ideal world libraries and librarianship would be havens of open and transparent discourse where we would all be able to contribute productively to improve our communities and workplaces. But it’s not an ideal world so we must accept that undisclosed publication happens.

Contributing to discourse in an undisclosed manner is tricky. It is typically counter-productive. It invites an author to accept no accountability for her words. It can enable her to attack and bully. Or pieces with undisclosed authorship could just become avenues for venting. And although venting can feel good it might be that venting is actually bad for our morale.

Sadly many of us work in organizations where there might be real consequences for making our ideas public–no matter how well reasoned they are. For these people writing publications with undisclosed attribution might be the only way to offer their ideas to the discussions happening about libraries and librarianship. Publishing productive commentary in this way should be a last resort. Will you get fired for writing this? Will your career not advance because of what you wrote? Will your idea not be heard if your name (or job status) is attached to the idea? If so, then a last resort might be for you.

Thanks to Michael Casey, Ellie Collier, Hilary Davis, and Amy Hofer for their substantive and insightful comments on this piece. Without their help this article would not have been completed.